Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Young People

Mr. Alan Simpson: If all young people will have a choice of all options in the new deal programme; what entitlement there is for progress from one option to another; and what is the maximum period that the unemployed will be able to be part of the programme. [18746]

The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Disability Rights (Mr. Andrew Smith): All young people will have a choice of options in the new deal, although there will not in every case be a choice of every option. For example, those who are already well qualified may not be eligible for the full-time education and training option. Most participants will stay on one option, but where it clearly meets a young person's needs, people will be able to move to a second option. Although most people are likely to spend less than a year in the programme, the maximum period will be 16 months, and longer if we take account of the follow-through support for those who need it at the end of the option.

Mr. Simpson: I am grateful for the Minister's answer. Is he aware that one in four young unemployed people in the east midlands are in Nottingham? Many of them have been around the magic roundabout of short-term fraudulent schemes that the previous Government offered them and are deeply cynical about the concept of training. Does he accept that, for some, securing a regular attendance record over six months would be a major achievement; that we ought to be considering repairing the damage done to those whose cynicism about previous employment initiatives may have been well placed; and that we should allow longer-term continuity to bring them sensibly, and with skills, back into an employable work force?

Mr. Smith: Yes; the new deal will bring new hope and opportunity to my hon. Friend's constituents, as it will to others. The crucial importance of the gateway in the new deal programme is that it provides for young people a period of counselling, advice, assessment and the chance to try out subsequent options before choosing what they will go on to do. They will have a personal adviser who will help them not simply during the gateway period but

while they are undertaking work under the option and subsequently when they so need it. Such continuity, the richness of provision and the quality that is available under the new deal will set it clearly apart from schemes that went before, which, as my hon. Friend rightly said, damaged so many young people.

Mr. Keetch: The Liberal Democrats welcome the new deal, although, as the Government know, we would fund it differently. What will the Minister say to people who will not qualify for the new deal because they take national insurance credits instead of, for example, jobseeker's allowance, or are on invalidity benefit? Is it not true that, for such young people, the new deal is no deal? What will the Government do about them?

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. We have new deal programmes not only for those in receipt of jobseeker' s allowance but for people who are disabled or have suffered long-term sickness—all from the extra £195 million, which the Chancellor made available from the windfall levy in the Budget.
Our approach to welfare to work offers opportunities not simply to the young unemployed, but to the long-term unemployed, the sick and disabled and lone parents. It is a world of opportunity better than anything that was on offer under the previous Government, and anything from the hon. Gentleman's party.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Bearing in mind the high unemployment in rural areas and the lack of public transport in many such areas, what special arrangements will the Minister put in place to enable the scheme to work in rural areas?

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the particular needs of rural areas. Those are being addressed by partnerships in each area, which match opportunities that will be made available locally to the needs of local participants, in conjunction with local business. We have negotiated at a national level substantial discounts through transport operators such as National Express and Stagecoach. The Rural Development Commission is working with local authorities to see how the new deal can extend transport availability in rural areas.

Mr. Beggs: We welcome the new deal and the new opportunities that will be afforded to those young people who have hitherto been unemployed. What emphasis will be put on ensuring that young people gain qualifications through the new deal?

Mr. Smith: That is another aspect which sets the new deal apart from schemes that went before. Quality training is a part of every option of the new deal because it is essential, not merely to rebuild the motivation and self-esteem of so many of the young unemployed, but to provide the means to help them get jobs and stay in jobs. I wish to place on record our thanks for the work of the Northern Ireland task force in developing the new deal there.

School Standards

Mr. Coaker: What plans he has to assist schools in areas of deprivation and disadvantage to raise standards. [18747]

Ms Dari Taylor: What plans he has to raise standards in schools in areas of disadvantage. [18757]

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): In our White Paper, we spelled out a series of measures that would raise standards and achieve our literacy and numeracy targets, including the development of the standards fund, which we have now published, and the 200 literacy co-ordinators across the country. Last week, we published the School Standards and Framework Bill, which laid out our plans for education action zones, through which we can target additional help, pilot best practice and draw together the whole community to ensure that every child in every school gets a decent education, wherever they live.

Mr. Coaker: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that one of the crucial concerns for the education action zones to address will be the fact that schools serving exactly the same sorts of areas of social deprivation—whether urban or rural—achieve vastly differing results, in examinations, truancy and exclusion levels and many other indicators? We need to ensure that all schools in those areas achieve their very best if the comprehensive ideal is to give all our children the start in life that they deserve.

Mr. Blunkett: I agree entirely. We have a bigger gap between success and failure than any other country in the developed world. Spreading best practice, developing quality leadership and headship in schools and ensuring that teachers have the professional development and in-service training necessary to do their jobs are all part of the agenda for transforming education in this country.

Ms Taylor: I am pleased to welcome the education action zones. We should appreciate knowing when the criteria for the education action zones will be published and what they will be.

Mr. Blunkett: I shall, within a matter of weeks, publish the detailed criteria for local communities, schools and education authorities to respond positively and in an innovatory fashion to the request to them to consider how they can use the zones to improve education in urban and rural areas. We shall of course spell out the detailed terms of reference. I hope that people will think imaginatively about how to tackle the long-standing under-achievement that has regrettably blighted the lives of some children in some parts of our country.

Mr. Viggers: Is the Secretary of State aware that this morning I read the brochure "Investing in Young People: A Strategy for the Education and Training of 16 to 18 year-olds" which he sent me? Are not the Government rich in promises but poor in performance? The funding of sixth-form colleges will fall in real terms in each of the next three years because of the productivity and efficiency improvements expected of them.

Mr. Blunkett: We are reducing by a third the productivity improvements—or cuts, as they were

previously known—demanded of the colleges by the budgets set by the previous Government. The £83 million of additional resources, not including the new deal provision, will go a long way to ensure that colleges can develop their potential. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman received, and has read, "Investing in Young People", because it contains an opportunity, in its 10-point plan, to set aside the neglect of 16 and 17-year-olds and to put in the resources and support necessary, including an additional £10 million to expand the modern apprenticeship scheme next year.

Mrs. Lait: Is the Secretary of State aware that, because of the excellence of the education provided by Bromley council, many parents from surrounding Labour-run boroughs send their children to schools in Bromley? Would he care to give us a time scale suggesting how soon he expects the improvements that he promises in education to take place in the surrounding Labour boroughs, so that the parents of children in Bromley can choose the school that they wish their children to attend?

Mr. Blunkett: In the spirit of Christmas magnanimity, I congratulate the hon. Lady on her return to the House. I am delighted that she has raised that question, because it offers us support in sorting out the mess that results when children are excluded from their local schools because of the selective process implemented in Bromley, with school knocking out school. Getting admissions policy right, together with lifting standards in all schools for all children, will be a key part in the process of making sense of the nonsense that we inherited.

After-school Child Care

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: If he will list the number of after-school child care places to be provided in (a) Scotland, (b) Wales and (c) each of the English regions. [18748]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Alan Howarth): The precise breakdown of places will depend on the volume and quality of bids received by the new opportunities fund.

Mr. Morgan: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is not the affordability of good quality child care essential to the success of any welfare-to-work programme? Will he confirm that research by the equal opportunities organisation in Wales, Chwarae Teg, shows that so far child care has reached only the children of parents with professional qualifications? So far—if I may refer briefly to last night's events—it has not yet reached the classic low-paid lone parent.

Mr. Howarth: The research that my hon. Friend mentions is indeed significant, and demonstrates that this country has lagged seriously behind in the provision of child care. The previous Administration did not think that they had a responsibility to develop a national child care strategy. We shall do so.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made an additional £300 million available over five years. That will ensure that there is out-of-school child care provision; there are also other child care projects available in every


community. We approach that important responsibility with the utmost seriousness. It is a means of ensuring that those who are deprived, in poverty and on the margins of our society have the opportunities that the Government want them to have.

Special Needs

Mr. Hinchliffe: What steps he is taking to improve provision for pupils with special needs. [18749]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Estelle Morris): On 22 October, we published a Green Paper, "Excellence for all children", setting out our proposals for raising the achievement of children with special educational needs. We are beginning to receive responses to the consultation from a wide range of interests.

Mr. Hinchliffe: I welcome the initiatives set out in the Green Paper, and other steps that the Government have taken, but may I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the specific difficulties facing children in care who attend mainstream education but also have special educational needs, and whose attendance record is often poor?
My hon. Friend may be aware that the Health Select Committee is undertaking an inquiry into the circumstances of looked-after children, and one of the issues that have come over to us loud and clear involves the tensions arising for those children as a result of the emphasis on league tables and school performance. Only this week, a child in a midlands city told us that the school that she attended simply did not like children in care. Will the Minister look into the issue as a matter of urgency, and attempt to achieve some balance between school attendance and the needs of children in those circumstances?

Ms Morris: I share my hon. Friend's concern about the under-performance of children in care. Statutorily, the state is their parent, and they have been badly let down. We want to address that issue through our responsibility not only for those with special educational needs but for looked-after children in general. We need far greater co-ordination between health authorities, social services and the education service, which have a joint collective responsibility to ensure that those children are cared for and receive a good standard of education. At the moment, many of them are being too badly let down.
I welcome the joint inquiry by the Select Committees on Health and on Education and Employment. As for my hon. Friend's comments on performance tables, it is crucial that information be made available, both for parents and so that schools can improve standards. I take seriously the idea that we should recognise progress and achievement wherever it happens. That is why, next year, we shall pilot value-added performance tables, so that the achievement of every child can be duly recognised.

Mr. Hawkins: When the Minister is looking at the different problems, will she recognise that a lot of head teachers—some of whom I was talking to recently—who have a proud record of helping special needs and statemented children are concerned about the policy that the Government are encouraging of inclusion in every single school? I was at one school last week where

40 per cent. of the entire roll are special needs or statemented. The head teacher feels that unless primary schools such as hers get extra resources, they will not be able to carry through the policy objectives that they wish to encourage. Will she look at the financial consequences of her policy on inclusion?

Ms Morris: Indeed. That is why, I was delighted to announce last Friday,Official Report, column 583, that the Government had made £11 million available next year for the access initiative. That amount compares with the £4 million made available by the previous Government last year, and is the highest amount in any single year.
I welcome the progress that some head teachers have made towards inclusion, and we want to encourage more of it. We believe that more children could be educated in mainstream schools. Many parents do not have the choice, as there is not a mainstream school near them that can accept their child. I accept that we must move with care towards inclusion, and we must make sure that schools have the proper support and that teachers have proper training. We do not want inclusion in name only; we want inclusion where children are working and being educated with their peers, and where they are taking a full and active part in school life. That can happen because, as the hon. Gentleman said, it is happening in many schools already.

National Year of Reading

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: If he will make a statement on his plans to support the National Year of Reading. [18750]

The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Byers): The aim of the National Year of Reading is to demonstrate to children the excitement, pleasure and enjoyment of reading. In addition, it will encourage adults to learn to read. The Government, along with the private sector, will be supporting those objectives in a variety of ways.

Mr. Thomas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply, and I warmly welcome the National Year of Reading; not least because it will provide an additional impetus for the Government's crusade to raise standards of literacy. As well as encouraging children who can read to develop their skills further, should we not focus attention on those who cannot yet read at all? What plans are there to focus on that specific group as part of the National Year of Reading?

Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Some 8 million adults are unable to read and write properly, and the National Year of Reading must treat them as a priority. We shall need to find new ways of engaging and motivating those adults. We are particularly pleased that popular television programmes such as "EastEnders" and "Brookside" have agreed to promote the National Year of Reading within their scripts. That is a positive way of engaging adults who otherwise would not be part of the National Year of Reading.

Mr. Don Foster: I welcome the Minister's response and the emphasis that he rightly places on raising literacy standards across the board. Therefore, is it not frankly
ludicrous that we are spending three times as much on testing the literacy and numeracy skills of seven-year-olds as we are on books for those seven-year-olds? Is he aware that, even with the additional money that the Government have provided, we shall still be spending twice as much on testing as on books?

Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait for an announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in a few days, which will reveal clearly the priorities of the Government. We believe that testing at seven is appropriate, as it is important to judge relative progress and to make sure that individual children can move on and develop their reading, and their literacy skills in general. On the wider issue of priorities, the hon. Gentleman will be pleased when he hears my right hon. Friend's announcement within 10 days.

Mr. Gordon Marsden: I welcome the Minister's statement on the National Year of Reading, and I urge him to give particular attention to co-ordinating adult literacy responses with those of children. That is particularly important in areas such as mine where not only the children but the parents in council estates need to be brought up to literacy standards. When we had a consultation exercise on the White Paper recently, that was one of the strongest points that came across. Will he take that into account?

Mr. Byers: Yes, the Government want a community approach to reading. The previous Government established four family literacy schemes—just four. We shall expand that programme and have nearly 500 family literacy schemes, as we recognise that that is a positive way to involve parents in developing their children's reading skills. It is a clear demonstration of the Government's commitment to getting the basics right and getting parents working with their children to ensure that they have the best possible start to their school life.

Student Loans

Mr. Allan: If students whose maintenance grants are to be phased out in 1998–99 will be eligible for the increased student loans that students in 1999 and 2000 are eligible to receive. [18751]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Dr. Kim Howells): New students entering higher education in the 1998–99 academic year will be eligible for increased loans in that year to offset the reduction in the level of maintenance grants. In 1999–2000, we propose to abolish maintenance grants. Those students will be eligible for an income-related loan for their maintenance on the same basis as 1999–2000 entrants.

Mr. Allan: Does the Minister share my fear that those people who are thinking of doing three or four-year undergraduate teacher training courses will be deterred by his proposals for student finance, as they know that the salaries that they will later earn as primary school teachers will be high enough for them to pay back the loan, but do not command the sort of graduate premiums that he uses to justify his proposals?

Dr. Howells: No, I do not agree. The reforms that we are putting in place see primary school teachers as an

essential part of our community. They will be rewarded as such. The reward that they will receive will be to see the education system transformed and, as a result, a higher education system that will be transformed as well.

Ms Hodge: I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Minister has had a chance to look at the Select Committee on Education and Employment report that was published yesterday on the funding issues arising out of the Dearing report and the Government's proposals. If he has, does he agree with the Committee's findings that, while we generally accept the thrust of Government policy, there will be a funding gap in the year 1999–2000, before the money starts to flow in? Does he further agree that that gap should not be met by declining standards in higher education, greater student poverty or continuing the cap on student numbers in higher education? Therefore, will he give the House some idea of whether he is considering other measures, such as those suggested in the Select Committee report, as a means of meeting that funding gap?

Dr. Howells: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State informed the Committee, as part of their comprehensive spending review, the Government will study that gap closely. They believe that the radical measures taken to secure sufficient funding and ensure a good and healthy future for higher education will also enable us to lift the cap on the number of students in higher education and will be sufficient to meet the long-term needs of that sector.

Mr. Boswell: Does the Minister agree that, contrary to the advice of the Dearing committee, the total abolition of maintenance grants is likely to lead to a real reduction in the numbers offering themselves for higher education. Do not the likely admission figures for next year already show that to be the case?

Dr. Howells: No, they do not. The figures are slightly down on this time last year—

Mr. Boswell: Really?

Dr. Howells: The hon. Gentleman can sneer, but it is true. What is more, there is evidence that 6 per cent. more students entered this year than the year before, because of the changes that are taking place in education. We think that the take-up by students this year accounts for that small drop in intake.

Miss Melanie Johnson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the decision to end the means-testing of grants for disabled students in full-time education has been widely welcomed?

Dr. Howells: It has been widely welcomed, and it shows that the Government, unlike the previous Government, recognise the huge potential among disabled people who have felt that they could not go into higher education because of the means test. That has properly been welcomed throughout the country, and will continue to be so.

Mr. Dorrell: Ministers are fond of asserting that it is the Government's policy to continue the expansion of higher education that has occurred over the past 18 years.
If that is indeed their policy, how can it be reconciled with the repeated reports from universities throughout the country of substantial reductions in applications for courses starting next autumn, compared with the equivalent figures for this time last year? Does the Minister agree that, when the figures from the Universities and Colleges Admission Service are published next week, we shall be able to compare the Government's warm words with hard reality? Does he accept that those figures are the litmus test of whether the Government are converting aspiration into reality?

Dr. Howells: The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that those figures are extremely volatile at the best of times and that, after Monday, more than 25 per cent. of applications will not yet have been received, so the figures will account for only 75 per cent. They will show important trends, but I put it to him that if there is a downward turn, it will be very temporary, because people understand, as the Government do, that getting a degree is the best advantage that people can get if they want a good job. We shall ensure that they get that degree.

Peer Education Schemes

Mr. Rowe: What plans he has to develop peer education schemes in schools. [18752]

Ms Estelle Morris: We set out in "Excellence in schools" our strategy for raising standards in all schools. That includes imaginative approaches, one of which is certainly peer tutoring. It is already the practice in significant numbers of schools, and available research evidence suggests that it is effective.

Mr. Rowe: Does the Minister recognise that there is considerable excitement about the introduction of the millennium volunteers scheme? Many of us who have been campaigning for such a scheme for many years are anxious that it should not be frittered away or lose its potential. Does she agree that, within the possibilities open to millennium volunteers, the expansion of peer education would be an extremely fruitful course?

Ms Morris: I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's contribution in this sector over many years and welcome his comments. Many young people have a valuable contribution to make in supporting the learning of younger people. I shall certainly take on board his suggestions.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Should not many local education authorities be congratulated on their work in developing mentoring schemes among students in schools, because of the pressures that many children face? Are not they best placed to demonstrate best practice?

Ms Morris: Yes, and I take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend's local authority in Bradford on its work, as well as the authorities in Winchester, Kirklees and Birmingham. There has been much innovation which, as the evidence shows, has raised standards. The key point is that not only the students who are tutored raise their standards: those who do the tutoring benefit as well. Peer tutoring means winning all round.

Tuition Fees

Mr. Burnett: How the collection of tuition fees is to be managed and by whom; and what estimate he has made of the cost.[18753]

Dr. Howells: Under our new funding arrangements, universities and colleges will collect private contributions to tuition fees from full-time undergraduate students, building on the arrangements that they already have in place for collecting fees from part-time, postgraduate and overseas students. The higher education funding plans for 1998–99 assumed that institutions in England would collect £130 million from private contributions to fees. That figure allowed for costs of about 5 per cent. for collection, and for any default.

Mr. Burnett: Sir Ron Dearing's recommendation that students should contribute towards their tuition fees has one important caveat: that the cash raised should be hypothecated to the higher education budget. Does the Minister agree?

Dr. Howells: We have already informed universities that the money that they collect will be used in universities to drive up standards, to help with the running of universities. We hope that that will continue. We are interested in lifelong learning. We want universities to be part of a seamless education structure that will allow people to enter university from many directions different from those from which they now enter. That is an important component of all our new schemes.

Mr. Steinberg: My hon. Friend probably knows that I oppose the introduction of tuition fees. I am wise enough to know that my opposition alone will not stop them coming in, but can he give a guarantee that if they are to be levied they will go solely to higher and further education? If they go into the Exchequer generally, they will be no more than a tax on education.

Dr. Howells: I can give my hon. Friend that guarantee. He opposes tuition fees, but presumably he does not support the present arrangement, or the ones that led to it, whereby a young person from a family in one of the two lowest socio-economic groups has a two in 10 chance of a university education while someone from a professional or managerial family has a seven or eight in 10 chance. That cannot be right, and that is why we are making the changes.

Mr. Willetts: The Minister has just made it clear that tuition fees are a tax on higher education to pay for further education, as people had feared. How does he expect to run reliable means tests on students who come from outside Britain, and how much it will cost to do so?

Dr. Howells: The hon. Gentleman is known as "two brains", so he will understand that we are members of the European Union and that, as such, we have to abide by European Union law and that that task already has to be carried out. It will be carried out by an agency equipped to do the job. I do not know what mystery there is about that. We will certainly be able do it. The Government will presumably abide by it because it is the letter of the law.

School Budgets (Extra Money)

Mr. Laurence Robertson: What steps he is taking to ensure that the extra money allocated by the Government to local authorities is actually allocated to schools' budgets. [18754]

Mr. Blunkett: I have written to the leaders of all local authorities with responsibility for education to emphasise that the £1,017 million additional funding for next year should be applied directly for the benefit of children in our schools so that the average 5.7 per cent. increase can be applied directly to raising standards.

Mr. Robertson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. I remind him that there is a difference between schools and education. As he has written to all local authorities, why did the Labour group on Gloucestershire county council vote just two weeks ago not to pass all the money on to schools? It was only because of the Conservative group that the motion to do so was carried.

Mr. Blunkett: I am always in favour of Conservative authorities following Government policy, and passing on the 5.9 per cent. increase in standard spending assessment allocated to Gloucestershire. I hope that Gloucestershire county council, with the support of all three main political parties, will apply itself to the provision of nursery education, which it has neglected over the years.

Mr. Bill O'Brien: There is no doubt that Labour local education authorities will see that the money goes to education. There are still several large metropolitan authorities where there is a discrepancy in the amount allocated per student for education, particularly in the SIGOMA group—the Special Interest Group of Metropolitan Authorities. Will my right hon. Friend quickly examine that situation with a view to levelling up the imbalance that exists because of the way the formula applies to some education authorities?

Mr. Blunkett: I and my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions accept that further work is required on ensuring that resources reach those parts of the country and those authorities that are in greatest need. That is why the Deputy Prime Minister announced changes a couple of weeks ago that will start the process of achieving greater equity and fairness across the country, including provision for nursery children on the basis of those funded rather than on the notional numbers in the authority—and, of course, on the actual rather than the notional capital debt that had accrued before 1990. There is still room for improvement, but we are taking those essential steps to ensure that authorities can apply fairly the resources made available to ensure that we have equal standards across Britain.

Mr. Dorrell: Is it not already clear that there is a yawning chasm between the Secretary of State's rhetoric about a 5.7 per cent. increase in the average standard spending assessment across the country and likely experience of head teachers in terms of the increase in their schools' budgets that they will receive when the councils set their budgets early next year? Is it not

the case that the Secretary of State simply cannot deliver on the commitments that he is giving, and that his letter makes that clear?
Is it not also true that such increase as will be available next year to schools will be paid for by swingeing increases in council tax? Today's edition of the Evening Standard reports that in London the council tax will increase by 11 per cent. on average, and that in Brent and Tower Hamlets it is set to increase by between 16 and 20 per cent. Are Ministers ready for yet another revolt from the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone)?

Mr. Blunkett: I was not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman was in favour or against those councils raising the money to protect education and essential services. They will certainly make a choice at local level to apply resources to the Government's and the people's priority, which is to ensure that resources are given to schools to support their aim to raise standards. That is our policy.
We have made it clear that we shall monitor what local authorities do with that money. For the first time since capping was introduced, we have applied the actual revenue pound for pound to match the SSA provided at local level. That is in complete contrast with what the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends did in the years when they were in government.

Dr. George Turner: Does my right hon. Friend recognise, however, that Labour councillors face the difficult task—particularly given the changes in SSA and to social services—of having to make cuts in the provision of social services to people in order to deliver improvements in education? As a former education chairman of Norfolk county council, I know that such improvements are important and necessary. Those councillors will need to have a sympathetic hearing from Ministers during the consultation exercise on what in some cases will be dramatic changes in budgeting as a result of changes in the formula. Will my right hon. Friend use his good offices to ensure that representations from those who face such a difficult task are sympathetically heard?

Mr. Blunkett: My letter to the leaders of councils said that after 18 years of Conservative Government there would be difficulties in matching all the priorities and demands at local level. My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing, who is present in the Chamber, is not only sympathetic but has managed with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health—whose cold I appear to have caught—to gain the provision of ring-fenced community care funding for the coming year, for an extra 12 months. That will help greatly to deal with the problem, which I accept exists, of matching demand and ensuring that we protect social services and the most vulnerable while at the same time matching the top priority of investing in standards in education.

Higher Education (Cornwall)

Mr. Andrew George: What recent representations he has received on the provision of higher education facilities in Cornwall. [18756]

Dr. Howells: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received a number of representations in recent months either supporting or opposing the university of Exeter's plans to establish a campus in Cornwall.

Mr. George: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he recognise that there is popular demand for a


university campus college in Cornwall, as demonstrated last night by the presentation of a popular petition to the House? The need to provide proper investment in higher education in Cornwall is also demonstrated by the fact that, pro rata, it has the longest waiting list in the country for Open university courses. There are also other reasons to support the request.
Does the Minister accept that it is no longer acceptable simply to ignore the strategic need to provide proper higher education resources in Cornwall and places like it by simply saying that it is a matter for the Higher Education Funding Council for England? He should also bear in mind the fact that the Secretary of State expressed strong support for the university of Exeter initiative prior to the election.

Dr. Howells: My right hon. Friend certainly gave that support. I can recall going a year ago to what one might call inland Cornwall and being shocked by the deprivation that I saw down there: it is one of the poorest parts of these islands. We recognise that higher education and its expansion, and further education and its expansion, can have a dynamic effect on economies in that state. We should like to see every effort made to try to raise those funds; we are barred by statute from telling any institution what it can or cannot do with its funding. We have certainly made inquiries of the Higher Education Funding Council to find out how it regards the project. We wish success to every attempt that is made to raise the sort of money required to expand higher education in Cornwall.

Mrs. Browning: While I welcome what the Minister has said about greater provision for higher education in Cornwall, which will be welcome throughout the west country, does he not realise that it his Government's policy that will penalise areas, particularly Cornwall? He will know, I hope, that average wages in Cornwall are 77.7 per cent. of the average in Great Britain. It is young people from families on lower incomes who will have the greatest difficulty now that the Government have rejected the Dearing recommendations and are about to force those young people, not only to pay tuition fees that will be repaid on a loan, but to pay 100 per cent. of their maintenance grant. It is precisely areas such as Cornwall which will notice first that fewer of their younger people are entering higher education.

Dr. Howells: It is a pleasure to answer the hon. Lady, and I will tell her why. Labour Members have known for years that people have been working on rice money, starvation money, which is why we are introducing the national minimum wage. It is why we shall ensure that young people in Cornwall will benefit from the new deal and from training; the new deal will be a tremendous investment. We believe that our proposals for the funding of higher education will increase the pitiably low percentage of young people from lower income families who currently enter higher education.

Young Unemployed

Mr. Colman: What steps he is taking to involve small and medium enterprises in the new deal for the young unemployed.[18758]

Mr. Andrew Smith: The involvement of small businesses is critical to the success of the new deal.
We are winning their involvement through direct contact at local level, through organisations representing SMEs such as the Federation of Small Businesses, the Forum of Private Business and chambers of commerce, and through sectoral organisations and trade associations, for example in construction and tourism. There will be advertising and an intensified local marketing effort in the new year, but already 9,000 employers have told us that they are committed to the new deal; my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) will be pleased to know that 70 of them are in Putney.

Mr. Colman: I thank my right hon. Friend for his response. An article in yesterday's Financial Times said that companies are flocking to sign up to the welfareto-work scheme. More than 50 of the largest companies in the United Kingdom were mentioned in the article. As the Federation of Small Businesses, which has 100,000 members, supports the welfare-to-work proposals, as my right hon. Friend said, and as most new jobs will be coming through SMEs in the future, will my right hon. Friend ask local employment services and local government offices to give publicity—in the same way as was done in the Financial Times yesterday—through local newspapers and the local media to examples of companies flocking to sign up in our constituencies?

Mr. Smith: That is a good idea and it is precisely that sort of local marketing—to which I referred—that will be taking place in the new year. We are seeing a growing recognition that the division and corrosion of our communities that are caused by youth unemployment will be solved only through partnership efforts that bring everyone together—local communities, local authorities and local businesses. The level of commitment that we are now seeing shows that they recognise the benefits to business both of getting young people in touch with the world of work and of their being able to enjoy its opportunities and face the responsibilities that go with it. The new deal is good news for businesses as it helps their recruitment effort at a time of growing skill shortages by equipping people and training them to get a job and stay in it.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I am sure that the Minister is well aware that many of the schemes that have been tried in the past, both here and overseas, have had the problem of substitution—where employers who were going to take someone on anyway take on someone on a subsidy. As it is to be a six-month scheme starting in April, will the Minister take care to ensure that the tourism industry does not simply decide to use the Government's money—the Treasury's money, the people's money—to subsidise people who would normally be taken on for a six-month period, giving them little in the way of training and thus doing away with all the jobs that would normally be taken by students who try to work during the summer so as to be able to afford to go to university?

Mr. Smith: The truth of the matter is that now is exactly the right time to introduce a programme such as the new deal, because of the level of unfilled vacancies across the country—320,000 at the last count. That is whole point of the new deal: it can equip young people


who would otherwise not have the opportunity to apply for and fill those jobs to do so. It is therefore good for the economy as well as for those young people's future.

Mr. Derek Foster: My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on the extent to which the big global players have signed up to support the new deal, but he will be aware that in most of our constituencies—certainly in some rural areas or in inner-city areas—it will be crucial to get large numbers of small and medium-sized enterprises. The Minister has given us some good news today, but my impression is that a great deal of work still needs to be done before we can be confident that sufficient numbers will be achieved. Will he ensure that the quality of training in that option is as high as it must be to deliver what young people need and deserve?

Mr. Smith: Yes, indeed. My right hon. Friend is entirely right. I met the head of the Basic Skills Agency this morning precisely to ensure that the monitoring and quality assurance of training under all the new deal options ensures that the training given is of the highest standard. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the work that he, too, is doing to encourage small firms to sign up to the new deal and recruit the young unemployed; indeed, such work is an important opportunity and the responsibility of all right hon. and hon. Members. I referred earlier to the importance of partnership in getting the young unemployed back to work; we all have a task to perform in our own communities to help to get businesses on board and open up the opportunities that the young unemployed need.

Literacy Strategy

Mrs. Brinton: If he will make a statement on the literacy strategy. [18759]

Mr. Byers: The national literacy strategy is an ambitious programme for achieving our target of 80 per cent. of 11-year-olds reaching the expected standard for their age in English by 2002.
Next year, we shall invest £50 million in training for teachers and in providing new books for schools. All local education authority applications for funding have now been received and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be announcing individual allocations before Christmas.

Mrs. Brinton: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. I speak as a former English teacher. Does my hon. Friend agree that summer literacy schools are one of the most effective ways of bringing literacy—reading and writing—to young people, especially those in disadvantaged communities? Is he prepared to comment on the recent evaluation of pilot projects that were held this summer? Is he aware that in my constituency of Peterborough we held two very successful projects at Bretton Woods community school and John Mansfield school? Those projects will be run again in 1998; will my hon. Friend visit them next summer, meet some of the young people and share with them in their achievement?

Mr. Byers: Thanks to the east coast main line, during one of my return visits to my constituency on Tyneside next summer I might stop off at Peterborough to visit

either of those schools—I know that they did good work this summer. Because of the success of the 50 summer literacy schemes held this year, we are pleased that there will be a tenfold expansion to 500 summer schools to take place next year. That is a positive way of providing new opportunities for young people and ensuring that when they enter secondary education they have the basic skills that they need in being able to read and write effectively.

Mr. Bercow: Does the Minister agree that in formulating a literacy strategy an emphasis on traditional methods is important and welcome, and that there should therefore be no role whatever for the three left-wing academics who observe in a pamphlet that
within the psycho-semiotic framework, the shared reading lesson is viewed as an ideological construct where events are played out
and that
Children must learn to position themselves in three interlocking contexts"?

Mr. Byers: Clearly there is a role for summer literacy schools for the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). Many of us on the Labour Benches who entered the House in 1992—I accept that he did not—find it very difficult to take lessons from the Conservatives on reading in our schools when the one programme that they ran to support reading in schools, the reading recovery programme, was scrapped by the previous Government in 1995.

Young Unemployed

Mr. Tony D. Wright: What representations he has received from employers in the (a) tourism, (b) leisure and (c) hospitality industries in respect of the new deal for young unemployed people. [18760]

Mr. Alan Howarth: On 24 November, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Disability Rights took part in a major conference for the tourism and leisure industry on the new deal, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. He tells me that he was delighted by the range of support and the enthusiasm for the new deal among employers in these important sectors. The Employment Service will now talk to 40 leading companies which participated in this event to discuss their involvement in more detail.

Mr. Wright: I thank the Minister for his response, but does he agree that, in a constituency such as mine—Great Yarmouth—where work in the tourism industry is seasonal and poorly paid, employers taking part in the new deal must recognise that the most important part of the new deal is the training element for young unemployed people in the constituency and throughout the country?

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is right to be worried about the interests of his constituents who may be taking part in the new deal, but I believe that the opportunities that can be provided in the tourism sector will be very important and valuable; it is one of the leading growth sectors in employment.


The safeguards for young people participating in the new deal are the formal agreements to be struck between the Employment Service and the employer, the guarantee of training, properly funded, setting the young person on the path to qualification, the continuing monitoring by personal advisers and, in the event that something goes really wrong, the new deal hotline, which will enable participants in the new deal to raise questions about whether they are receiving a proper deal, as I believe that they will.

Voluntary-aided and Denominational Schools

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: If he will make a statement on the Government's policy on voluntary-aided and denominational schools.[18761]

Mr. Byers: The Government welcome the part that voluntary schools, including voluntary-aided and denominational schools, play in the education service. Our new school framework will safeguard their ethos and will enable them, and all other schools, to raise standards and improve the quality of the education that they offer.

Mr. Winterton: Does the Minister accept that voluntary schools and denominational schools have for many decades served as the leaven in the dough to raise educational standards and the standards of pastoral care provided by our education service, and that the resources provided by the Churches in this country to supplement the public purse have been beneficial to every child in every school in the country? Will he assure me that denominational schools are safe in the Labour Government's hands?

Mr. Byers: I endorse the hon. Gentleman's comments about the valuable role that Church schools play. In the consultation exercise following the publication of the White Paper, "Excellence in schools", we were able to reflect on proposals made by the Church education

authorities. As a result of their representations, we now have before the House a Bill which has their support. We believe that, as a result of the amendments that we made in the light of their representations, we now have a far better Bill.

Mr. Jim Marshall: How many Muslim schools have indicated a desire to enter the voluntary-aided sector? What criteria would they have to meet before such admission?

Mr. Byers: A number of applications are before Ministers at the moment, including some from promoters from the Muslim sector. As I am the Minister who has to consider those applications, it would be wrong for me to make a statement this afternoon. I can say, however, that they will be judged on the criteria that we apply to all other applications.

Mr. Dafis: May I press the Minister a little further? As Church of England and Roman Catholic schools are integrated in the public sector, should not similar provision be made for Muslim schools and for other schools with alternative curricula, such as the Rudolf Steiner schools? Would the Minister be willing to meet representatives of the Third Sector Schools Alliance to explore this possibility, and to explain what the obstacles to their entry to the public sector are? Is it not wrong that schools should be obliged to stay in the private or voluntary sector when they would like to be integrated with the public sector?

Mr. Byers: I understand the concerns expressed by the hon. Gentleman. There is no dogmatic opposition to schools entering the maintained sector; all schools will be subject to the same criteria. In particular, they will have to meet the demands and requirements of the national curriculum. One of the difficulties experienced by the types of school mentioned by the hon. Gentleman has been their failure to meet the terms and requirements of the national curriculum.

Freedom of Information

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Dr. David Clark): I am today publishing a White Paper on freedom of information. Its full title is "Your Right to Know—the Government's proposals for a Freedom of Information Act".
I am delighted to be able to make this important announcement to the House today. "Your Right to Know" is the latest example of how the Government are delivering the radical agenda for constitutional change set out in our manifesto.
For our agenda to be effective in modernising Britain, it is essential to identify the linkages between each of the Government's reforms. That has been assured by the role of my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor, who chairs the Cabinet Committee on freedom of information. Under his chairmanship, we have also published the White Papers on devolution for Scotland and Wales, and the "Rights Brought Home" White Paper on the incorporation of the European convention on human rights into UK law.
Now this White Paper provides a further essential element in our constitutional agenda. "Your Right to Know" sets out clear and detailed proposals for legislation, which would give every individual a statutory right to know about the information and records that the Government hold. That is a right which will transform the culture of government and make it more open and accountable. It is a huge step towards rebuilding trust between the Government and the people.
These proposals for legislation realise a commitment set out in Her Majesty's Gracious Speech last May. Our White Paper is the outcome of a root-and-branch examination of this complex and difficult policy area. Within seven months, the Government have addressed the sensitive issues involved and arrived at the firm proposals described in the White Paper. On that basis, I believe that few can question our commitment to fundamental constitutional reform.
Our proposals start from the premise that open government is good government. They are accordingly radical, and with your permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to draw the House's attention to the key features of our FOI regime.
The first such feature would be wide coverage. We propose that an FOI Act should apply right across the public sector, covering Government Departments and agencies; local councils; quangos; nationalised industries; the national health service; schools and colleges; courts and tribunals; police authorities; the armed forces; and public service broadcasters. It should also include the privatised utilities and some private sector organisations carrying out duties on behalf of the Government. Instead of the few hundred public bodies subject to the code of practice on access to Government information, tens of thousands of bodies will be covered by the Act.
Secondly, there would be access to documents, not just to information. The right of access would be broadly based, and would apply to official records and information held by the bodies covered by the Act. That goes far beyond the code, which provides a non-statutory entitlement to information, but not to records or documents.
Thirdly, fewer exemptions would be allowed. The system for protecting information would be based on seven specific interests, instead of the 15 exemptions in

the code of practice. Significantly, in most cases, information could be withheld only if its disclosure would cause substantial—I repeat substantial—harm. That is a further important advance on the code, which laid down a simple harm test.
Fourthly, a duty to publish would be introduced. I want the legislation to encourage public authorities to take a positive approach to openness, by requiring them to publish information as a matter of course, whether it has been requested or not. My Department will be developing an action programme to support the move from a culture of secrecy to one of openness.
Fifthly, there would be strong enforcement. An independent information commissioner should oversee the implementation of the legislation. To do that effectively, the Government have agreed to give the commissioner wide-ranging powers, including the power to order disclosure. At present, the parliamentary ombudsman, who supervises the code of practice, can only recommend disclosure.
Finally, we need an integrated system. Access rights to current and historic information would be brought together through the integration of the relevant sections of the Public Records Acts into the freedom of information Act. That would ensure a single legislative approach to the release of both past and present records.
Those points broadly summarise the Government's proposals for a freedom of information Act. It is fitting that this White Paper marks the start of an extensive and open consultation process, which will continue through much of the next year. First, there will be a period of consultation on the White Paper itself. That will give Parliament and the people a clear idea of the freedom of information Bill, which we intend to introduce as soon as a suitable opportunity occurs.
Before I conclude, let me mention two further initiatives connected with "Your Right to Know", the results of which will inform the consultative process even before the draft Bill. Indeed, I expect to publish both of them shortly after the Christmas recess.
The first is a separate consultation exercise on the management of Crown copyright. This is the system which protects the status and the integrity of official Government information. It also underpins the charging regime that exists for certain tradeable information-based services. Crown copyright is clearly relevant to our White Paper proposals, and we have almost completed an examination of its operation. I hope to publish the results of that in a Green Paper very shortly.
The second initiative will be a published paper setting out factual and background material relevant to the production of this White Paper. That fulfils the commitment that I made while the White Paper was being prepared, and is in line with the good practice set out in the White Paper itself, which commits Government to the maximum possible disclosure of factual and background information behind policy decisions.
Openness is fundamental to the political health of a modern state. This White Paper marks a watershed in the relationship between the Government and people of the United Kingdom. At last there is a Government ready to trust the people with a legal right to information.
There are matters, such as national security or personal privacy, where information must be protected. The Government need some protection for their internal


deliberations. I believe that our proposals strike the proper balance between extending people's access to official information and preserving confidentiality where disclosure would be against the public interest. It is a new balance, with the scales now weighted decisively in favour of openness. I believe strongly in these proposals, and I am delighted to commend them to the House now as a basis for public debate in the coming weeks and months.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in supplying me with a copy of the statement earlier today. I also endorse your remarks on Tuesday, Madam Speaker, in thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his full apology for the most unfortunate and deeply deplored leak that occurred on that day. When he responds to my questions, will the Minister inform the House how far his inquiries have progressed?
I have several general and some specific questions for the Minister. Does he agree that, if ever there were a subject where consensus was desirable, this is it? Will he institute talks with representatives of all parties during the lengthy consultative process? He will know that the Conservatives do not share his zeal for constitutional reform. However, we shall be more than willing to participate in a constructive spirit, because we are proud of our achievements in opening up government in a real and tangible way. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman—for whom I have a high personal regard—did not see fit to pay tribute to the Conservative Government's work in instituting the citizens charter, producing league tables in health and education, and making many other important advances in open government.
Does the Minister agree that any freedom of information legislation should be submitted to a Special Standing Committee, so that it can be scrutinised most carefully? Does he accept that government, the parliamentary process and the integrity and impartiality of the civil service are undermined by leaks? Will he ensure that any Bill includes penalties for breaches of confidence and that any such provisions cover special advisers?
Does the Minister further agree that it is important that any Act should be a bulwark against the intrusive state, and that often people are best served by being given information and being allowed to decide for themselves? Will the Minister ensure that any provisions in the Bill apply in equal measure to the proposed regional development agencies, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly? Will he comment about that matter?
The Minister referred to seven specified interests. Will they cover the sensitive issues of foreign trade and commercial confidentiality? Will they cover the work of the Northern Ireland Office? Will the right hon. Gentleman spell out a little more clearly what he means by the word "substantial"? Finally, will he say a little more about the rather nebulous role of the commissioner and how his work will relate to that of the Parliamentary Commissioner?

Dr. Clark: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome to the White Paper. We appreciate his sentiments. I listened to his offer of consultation, and I agree that we would welcome consensus on the issue. There will obviously be many opportunities for the widest consultation regarding both the White Paper and the draft Bill. I shall certainly consider ways in which we may take forward discussions in that respect.
As to the inquiry that I promised to establish in an attempt to discover who was behind the leak, my investigations are progressing. I shall obviously try to find out who was responsible.
The hon. Gentleman asked a specific question about the regional development agencies. Freedom of information would apply to them. The White Paper also refers to the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. It makes it clear that while the Scottish Parliament will be responsible for taking decisions on matters pertaining to it, it is intended that it should have a freedom of information regime.
The substantial harm test is a key part of our policy. It is a liberal approach. I do not think that any freedom of information Act in the world includes substantial harm. It makes it harder to withhold information from the general public: unlike the code, which uses a simple harm test.
As I was drafting the White Paper, at the forefront of my mind was the ordinary citizen: not big business and not even the press, but the individual citizen. I am conscious of the fact that the legislation must be simple and straightforward. I was disappointed in the American system, which allows no appeal other than to the courts. I felt that it was sensible to avoid litigation, and to avoid going to the courts, so I advocated the creation of an independent information commissioner. The main purpose of the Act is more open government, and an information commissioner would be able to check the papers held by public bodies, and would rule on appeals by individuals who have had their applications rejected. He or she would have the mandatory authority to order the disclosure or withholding of information.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Being prepared to make uncomfortable facts known to the general public is a sign of a self-confident Government. Is he aware that the previous Government, at the end of their tenure, had a deliberate policy of concealment of information? They established various subsidiary agencies, which constantly bleated and used commercial reasons to justify hiding facts that should have been in the public domain. Will my right hon. Friend guarantee that his Bill will be framed in such a way as to enable Parliament to know not only what is good and comfortable, but what is uncomfortable and awkward? That is the sign of a mature and sensible Parliament.

Dr. Clark: I thank my hon. Friend for her welcome for the statement. I share her view that openness is good government. On occasion, one must face up to unpalatable facts. The Government have a good record on the disclosure of information, such as the recommendations of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee on BSE. We have been prepared to discuss with the British people the recommendations of our scientific advisers, and we have followed their advice.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Is the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster aware that my right hon. and hon. Friends broadly welcome this fulfilment of a commitment made in agreement with my party prior to the election, to introduce a comprehensive, wide-ranging and enforceable freedom


of information Bill? I welcome his openness to suggestions for amending and improving the legislation during the various deliberative stages to come.
I shall make a couple of points that do not, in any way, fundamentally attack the Government's approach. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is some risk that prior agreement between the receiving body and the giving body to treat matters in confidence could lead to an unacceptable exclusion of information? Does he further agree that the harm test for policy advice to Ministers and to the Government, which he describes in the White Paper, is too low and could limit public participation in the discussion of practicable options? Does he accept that there will be some disappointment that the 30-year rule is being retained, although modified, and that that may unnecessarily limit historical research?

Dr. Clark: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind words, and I appreciate his general welcome of the White Paper. I shall try to conduct the consultations in an open way, as he wants.
The question of information given to the Government in confidence is a real difficulty; it is impossible to run away from such issues. I hope that we shall raise it, and that it will be raised with us, during the consultation period. As for the harm test and policy advice, I do not apologise for saying that the Government need space to conduct their deliberations, especially in a modern society. Having said that, however, I must add that the Government are very conscious that there is still unnecessary secrecy, even in information coming to Ministers. We have tried to differentiate between specific policy advice given to Ministers—and conveyed between Ministers—and simple factual and background papers given to Ministers. We hope and intend that the background and factual papers will be available, and will not be subject to the exemption.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the 30-year rule. We must bear it in mind that, while after 30 years documents are passed to the Public Record Office, under the new regime the Departments will disclose much more information during those 30 years. For that reason, shortening the period was not such a priority as it had been.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite all the criticism that he has received over the past few months about delay, many Labour Members now realise that his statement has been worth waiting for? The headline should be "Labour recaptures the high ground".
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when he talks of getting a consensus with that lot over there—the Tories—he should be careful? They will procrastinate for as long as possible. They will talk the hind leg off a donkey in the hope that they can delay the legislation for year after year. At the end of the day, the Labour Government must legislate—so do not hang about with that lot, because they will be frightened to death of having to reveal where they have got their money from under freedom of information legislation. When we get that information, we shall find that some of the money came from heroin dealers in Hong Kong.

Dr. Clark: I take it as a high accolade to receive compliments from my hon. Friend.
It is clear that we need to get the legislation right, and we intend to get it right, because we shall probably have only one opportunity to do so. I hope that my statement underlines the Government's commitment to push through—after as much consultation as possible—wide-ranging and radical freedom of information legislation that will change our whole political culture. I hope that we can move from our obsession with secrecy to a modern society based on openness.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: Like others, I welcome the statement. If legislation follows, with the breadth and scope that the right hon. Gentleman described, it will emancipate many individuals, as well as the press itself and Her Majesty's loyal Opposition.
May I ask what will happen when an issue falls within, say, the scope of the Official Secrets Act, and could fall within the scope of a damage test? I have in mind, for instance, information given in confidence by a foreign Government. More specifically, what will happen in the Council of Ministers, which is one of the legislative bodies for this country?

Dr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman has a long and worthy history of trying to bring about freedom of information legislation. I pay tribute to the work that he has done over the years.
There must clearly be an interface between the Official Secrets Act and the freedom of information legislation. We must examine very closely the levels of harm and damage in both, to ensure that they are compatible with each other. On the hon. Gentleman's specific point about the Council of Ministers, the test is one of simple harm under the Official Secrets Act. However, such issues need to be explored. When I say that we need consultation because we have to get the legislation right, I refer to such matters of detail, which we intend to pursue over the next few months.

Dr. Tony Wright (Cannock Chase): I congratulate my right hon. Friend on—on any test—a remarkable and historic statement. We promised a freedom of information Act in five manifestos, we tried through private Members' routes to enact one, and, despite the report of Sir Richard Scott and, a Select Committee report in which a Conservative majority recommended action, the previous Government failed to do anything.
Will all the exempt areas be subject to a test of substantial harm? At the moment, we have the curious convention that new Governments have no access to policy advice—albeit of a background nature—that was available to the previous Administration. That is conspicuous in the case of BSE. Will my right hon. Friend's proposals change that, so that we may see some of the evidence on the policy disasters of the recent past?

Dr. Clark: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. He has taken a particular interest in this area since he has been in Parliament. For all exempted areas, with the exception of policy advice to Ministers, the substantial harm test will be the required test. For policy advice to Ministers, the test will be one of simple harm. My hon. Friend referred to the convention that papers are not made


available to succeeding Governments. Clearly, all such issues will be raised during consultation, and we shall have to wrestle with them.

Sir Raymond Whitney: While I fully endorse the benefits of open decisions that have been openly arrived at, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in any organisation, there is always a need for some degree of confidentiality if it is to function effectively—whether it is a family, a parochial church council, a company or the Government? Does he further agree that those who write thunderous editorials about the need for ever more open government are themselves most jealous in keeping their own secrets? Does he agree that his high-minded attachment to the benefits of open government, which I fully accept as sincere, sits somewhat oddly with the record of how we had to drag out of the Government their dealings in the formula one affair?

Dr. Clark: We take on board the point that Governments need space in which to conduct their deliberations and come to their decisions. In deciding on and framing the White Paper, we specifically make the point that it is important to maintain the collective responsibility of government; that it is vital that we retain the political impartiality of public servants; and that we appreciate the importance of free and frank internal discussions in coming to conclusions as a Government. It is because of that that we have a slightly different exemption on policy advice.

Dr. Brian Iddon: My right hon. Friend has made a bold statement, which I am sure the people of the nation will warmly welcome. There is nothing worse than fighting bureaucracies. However, will he ensure that people who are seeking legitimate information will not be harassed in any way by, for example, being asked awkward questions about why they want the information, and that they will get information without prejudice?

Dr. Clark: I thank my hon. Friend for the question. Clearly, it is not the business of Government to determine why an individual citizen wants a piece of information that is held by the Government. There is no bar, no proposed requirement, no stipulated reason why a person should need the information. It is purely a case of an application, per se.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Will the right to know extend to the real Government of Britain—the Commission of the European Union—as it is the master now and the Labour Government are the puppets?

Dr. Clark: I am afraid that I do not have responsibility for the European Commission.

Mr. Peter Bradley: Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that this historic statement will be as welcome outside the House as it is to Labour Members, although judging by the grinning and grumbling of the Opposition, it is clear that they have problems with accountable and open government and public service? On the question of expedition, will my right hon. Friend set time limits within which organisations must respond to requests for information? Will he also illustrate, for the

benefit of the House, the sins, blunders, omissions and conspiracies of the previous Government, which would not have been visited on the people of this country had freedom of information legislation been in place?

Dr. Clark: In the annexe to the White Paper, we set out the times in which departments in various countries have to respond to queries. The period is usually between 20 and 30 days, and we have specifically included that subject in the consultation. My hon. Friend tempts me when he asks me to talk about the sins of the previous Government. For my sins, I was a Front-Bench spokesman for 10 years, on agriculture and on defence. I certainly believe that, if we had had the sort of legislation that we propose, we would have been able to discover much information about BSE, which might have saved a lot of money. We might also have saved much hurt and harm after Chernobyl, which was the subject of a considerable cover-up. In latter years, as defence spokesman, I tried to explore what was behind Gulf war syndrome and, if I could have had access to the information that I would have been able to get under our legislation, much harm and hurt could have been saved and we might have got to the truth more quickly.

Mr. Peter Viggers: What is all this going to cost and who is going to pay?

Dr. Clark: It is impossible to ascertain the precise cost, for the simple reason that we do not know what the demand will be. However, based on the code, it is clear that the cost will not be prohibitive. It is a cost well worth paying to open up government and sweep away the secrecy.

Ms Tess Kingham (Gloucester): I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and the fact that it extends to police authorities. I have been frustrated since being elected that I have not been allowed access to Police Complaints Authority reports, and I know that my predecessor was also frustrated by that. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether PCA reports, especially about investigations of deaths in custody, will be covered by the legislation?

Dr. Clark: The administration of the police is covered in the White Paper. For reasons that we all understand, we distinguish between the operational arm of the police and the administrative arm, but the latter should be covered by the legislation. It is my impression that the information that my hon. Friend requests will be covered, but I shall look into it and write to her.

Mr. David Ruffley (Bury St. Edmunds): Does the Minister believe that the Minister without Portfolio, the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), had something to do with the disgraceful leak of the contents of the White Paper earlier this week to the BBC? Will he confirm that those conducting the leak inquiry will seek personal interviews with the Minister without Portfolio?

Dr. Clark: I came to the House the day before yesterday and apologised for that leak. I repeat that I knew nothing about it and no one was more annoyed about it than I was. We have set in train measures to look into the leak, and we shall have to await the outcome.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): On the narrow issue of the misleading of Parliament, and after spending 11 days in


the Old Bailey during the trial of Clive Ponting, may I ask whether the issue of the protection of deep throat information, for want of a better phrase, will be addressed?
In particular, will civil servants who know that the House of Commons is being treated by Ministers using an economy with the truth have somebody to go to, rather than being told that they must report it to the Sir Robert Armstrong of the day? It is unreal to expect civil servants to go to their permanent secretary or the Cabinet Secretary and say, "Please, sir, a Minister is lying." Is that problem addressed?

Dr. Clark: As I understand it, a private Member's Bill that deals with certain aspects is shortly to come before the House.

Mr. Dalyell: Does it have Government support?

Dr. Clark: I shall certainly have discussions with the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), to find out whether those points can be covered.

Mr. Edward Garnier: Had the policy just announced been in force in October, would the minutes of the meeting held by the Prime Minister with representatives of formula one at No. 10 Downing street—on 18 October, I believe—have been disclosed as a matter of course?

Dr. Clark: If that involved advice to Ministers, clearly it would be protected from the legislation.

Mr. Derek Foster: Does my right hon. Friend share my view that this is the most important piece of unfinished business since the disgraceful way in which the Conservative party dealt with the Scott report? I congratulate him on the scythe that he has taken to the deep undergrowth of the culture of secrecy in government. He is today lighting a fire that will ultimately cleanse the democratic process and begin to restore the trust between Government and people.

Dr. Clark: I might just disagree with my right hon. Friend, in that the business is not exactly unfinished; until today, it was unstarted business. We have made a start today, and we intend to push it through. We shall push away the cobwebs of secrecy, and have a modern democratic society where the people of Britain will know the secrets that their Governments hold.

Mr. Ian Bruce: We in the House all know that we are entitled to ask questions, and that the questions must have answers. However, it is the quality of the answers that we are worried about. We were all sympathetic to the right hon. Gentleman until he answered my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) and clearly did not intend to reveal the information that he said was available.
The Government can set their own policy without an Act, so will the right hon. Gentleman now tell the House that they will act as if the Act were already in place, rather than waiting years for it to be passed? For instance, I recently gave a list to the Prime Minister's office in a

parliamentary question asking him to say whom he had met—people from among his blind trust contributors—and I got an answer which, although honest, told me absolutely nothing. Would that be covered?
Yesterday, the Prime Minister announced that the electricity companies were extending coal contracts for six months, yet this morning the electricity companies did not know that they were doing that. Would we be able to find out where that information came from?

Dr. Clark: It is a bit rich for Conservative Members to talk about waiting for years for information. While we are waiting for the legislation to be introduced, we are operating under the code of practice introduced by the previous Government.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: I can tell my right hon. Friend that when I used to ask the same sort of question of Tory Ministers, all my answers were always blocked. It is clear that the regime will change, and this is a triumph of common sense over the secret state, which has been a burden on the British people for far too long. It will transform the relationship between the individual and the state.
May I ask my right hon. Friend a specific question? He used the word "substantial" to qualify the word "harm". Can we have an absolute assurance that the word "substantial" will find its way into the final legislation, because that word will ensure that no attempt is made to block the provision of information to the wider public?

Dr. Clark: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the word "substantial". I believe that its use is unique in freedom of information legislation. It means that it will be more difficult to withhold information. The Government have made it quite clear that that is the key component of the White Paper.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: We on the Ulster Unionist party Bench give a warm welcome to the Minister's announcement today, and I think that all hon. Members representing Northern Ireland will do the same. We have particularly suffered from quangos, and we look forward to being able to ask questions about those bodies. Will the Anglo-Irish Secretariat be included in the bodies about which we can ask questions?

Dr. Clark: I thank the hon. Gentleman. We have published a consultation paper on quangos, and he and I have had an exchange on the subject. On his specific question, I suspect that the body to which he referred would not be covered by the freedom of information legislation, but I shall try to ascertain the precise position.

Ann Clwyd: I, too, would like to congratulate my right hon. Friend, who has fought a long, hard and personal battle to produce the White Paper. It is good to have it today. Will the intelligence and security services be covered by the White Paper, particularly as MI5 is increasingly carrying out investigations into matters that cannot be described as national security, such as fraud and computer fraud in Whitehall? Will he assure us that those matters will be covered by the legislation?

Dr. Clark: I am afraid that I have to disappoint my hon. Friend. We have made it clear that we believe that


the intelligence services are vital to the security of our nation. However, we have shown that although we are prepared to release information about the intelligence services, we hope that the new culture of openness and a new interaction between the House and the intelligence services can be built on, to create more openness in ways other than through the White Paper and legislation.

Mr. Nigel Evans: I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) got a response to his question, so I will give it another go. Can the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster state whether the Minister without Portfolio will be questioned about any involvement that he may have had with the leak? When will he be questioned? If the right hon. Gentleman will not answer those questions, this debate will be about not our right to know, but our right not to know.

Madam Speaker: Order. I really do feel that that question does not concern the White Paper. The Minister has gone as far as he can, and came to the House a few days ago very genuinely to tell us what had happened. With great respect to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), his question has nothing to do with the White Paper that the Minister is presenting today.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend on his groundbreaking statement. I have a specific question about public money going to private individuals for some alleged public benefit. Will individuals who receive public money to allow access to land under the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food agricultural schemes for environmentally sensitive areas, and landowners who receive conditional exemption from inheritance tax for allowing people on to land, but are not required to publicise that access, be covered by the White Paper?

Dr. Clark: As a former president of the northern Ramblers Association, I have a certain sympathy with my hon. Friend's point. Clearly, information held by Government Departments relating to matters such as access to land and moneys being paid by MAFF should be available under the legislation.

Mr. John Bercow: In keeping with the principles of the White Paper and the importance of the proper release of Government information, will the Minister now tell us whether, in future leak inquiries, Ministers as appropriate will be interviewed—yes or no?

Dr. Clark: Leak inquiries are nothing to do with the White Paper. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Let me just—[Interruption.] I can only state the facts, I am afraid. The White Paper concerns the release of information. We all understand that there are set procedures for a leak inquiry. I have set in train measures to look into those reports, and the permanent secretary is conducting those measures.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I congratulate the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on the publication of this strong White Paper—the product, perhaps, of a successful marriage of Clark's shoes and Cardinal Wolsey's socks. The new commissioner's power of enforcement is unprecedented in the way in which we

have conducted our business in this country. Therefore, the key is the appointment of what one might call a person with the right, challenging mindset. Will my right hon. Friend tell us how such a commissioner is to be appointed, and can we be sure that we shall not finish up with a cosy establishment figure?

Dr. Clark: In view of the key role that the information commissioner will hold, it is important that we get the right man or woman. The commissioner will be the principal officer, acting under the principal purpose of the Act, which will be to encourage more open and accountable government. It will be his or her job not only to adjudicate on whether information should be disclosed or withheld after an appeal, but to act as a facilitator, to find out whether there are ways in which citizens can find the information if they lose their appeal. Therefore, it is a key role. It is vital to understand that we have gone a long way in this process by insisting, in groundbreaking terms, that the commissioner will have mandatory powers to order withdrawal or disclosure of information.

Mr. Norman Baker: I welcome the statement. Is the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster aware that many people, both inside and outside the House, have waited years for such a proposal? Is not it a breath of fresh air, compared with the suffocating secrecy under the previous Government?
To follow on from the point made by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), why are the security services exempt from this proposal? Bearing in mind the fact that the legislation dealing with those services is tightly drawn, would not it be possible for the substantial harm test to be applied to them as well? Inevitably, that would prevent any leakage of materials that were damaging to national security, and I accept that a higher percentage of documents would be held, but it would allow some release of material. Can the Minister comment on the access to information in regard to European Union documents held by the Government in this country, as there is a problem with freedom of information in Europe as well?

Dr. Clark: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, that is a dilemma, but I think that every country excludes—the word is not exempt; it is exclude—the security services from freedom of information legislation. That might not be entirely true, but certainly most countries do. We took the view that if there was only an exemption, it could be challenged. We felt that the security of our nation took precedence in this respect. The House has an Intelligence and Security Committee. There are moves to try to open up the intelligence services, and we shall try to continue with that process.
On the latter point about European legislation, we started to explore that, but we have been wrestling with so many complex issues in the past seven months that we have left it for consideration in the consultative period. We shall have some time between now and producing the draft Bill to sort out many of the matters of detail.

Mr. Llew Smith: The Minister stated that our right to know would extend to public bodies and companies. Will he confirm that British Nuclear Fuels plc is one of the public bodies that will be covered by the


Act? Will he also confirm that the operations of that company have been clouded in secrecy for far too long? It has been hiding behind excuses of commercial confidentiality and national security, to prevent the public from knowing what is happening within it.

Dr. Clark: We have made it clear that we shall include private sector industries that operate on a statutory basis, as well as the privatised utilities and the nationalised industries.
The security exemption will apply to British Nuclear Fuels, as to other organisations, but we are getting much more openness from British Nuclear Fuels these days, and I hope that that will continue. I mentioned Chernobyl earlier; we have moved a long way in the 10 years since that happened, and we now get much more help from British Nuclear Fuels.

Dr. Lynda Clark: I congratulate the Minister on the White Paper and I look forward to the open consultation process, which I hope will form a model for other legislation. I am concerned that information will become of no use to people if they do not receive it quickly. Will there be mandatory time limits in the Bill? Will there be any role for Members of Parliament? Is it intended that constituents should come to us before going to the commissioner?

Dr. Clark: There will be a period within which we would expect Government or other bodies to reply to an application. We have suggested times applied in other countries in the annexe to the White Paper, but that is open to consultation. On the latter point, we considered whether we should follow the ombudsman route and direct inquiries through Members of Parliament, but we felt that that was unnecessary and that it was right and proper that the individual should be able to apply for the information on his or her own behalf, directly to the Department and then directly to the commissioner.

Dr. Alan Whitehead: I add my congratulations to the Minister on his statement, which struck a blow for all who believe in transparent government. What consultations does he intend to hold with local government, to ensure that the present machinery under the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 is transferred smoothly into the provisions of whatever Bill is passed?

Dr. Clark: I have already had meetings with local government leaders, and I have been most encouraged by their enthusiasm to be brought within the legislation. They rather enjoyed being able to say that they were more open than us in any case. That is very positive. I have also had

discussions with national health service representatives, and they, too, have been very positive. We shall continue the discussions, because it is very important that all those public services should be able to work together and to interrelate.

Mr. Derek Wyatt: As a former publisher and director of William Heinemann, which published "Spycatcher", it is music to my ears to hear the legislation outlined today. I have a practical question: given that the Minister's Department has one webcaster, but that there are no others in the civil service, how are we to get information from the civil service? What plans are there to train people and improve internet access, which is a matter of concern at the moment?

Dr. Clark: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words, and I can reassure him. I hope that the White Paper is being put on the internet at this very moment. That has certainly been my approach, and we may well consider how to put the consultation papers on the internet. I believe that the information technology at our disposal will allow us to put many more Government papers on the internet, and to do it extremely quickly.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Does my right hon. Friend recall that, following an incident in my constituency in which a lorry carrying munitions caught fire, the previous Government refused to answer questions, on the ground of confidentiality, but that when the identical questions were tabled in the Congress of the United States, the information was given that the lorry was carrying cluster bombs and projectile missiles and was a considerable risk to my constituents?
Does my right hon. Friend further recall that the information from an inquest held in my constituency on a boy who was killed by mustard gas was kept secret in this country, but revealed by the United States navy? Will information about this country that is freely available in other countries be made available here when the legislation is passed?

Dr. Clark: My hon. Friend makes a fair point, which I came across in dealing with the aftermath of Chernobyl. One had to go to the United States and Sweden to get the information that appertained to our country. We have made it clear that the Army will be covered in its routine activities by the Act, although obviously operations are a different matter. The case to which my hon. Friend referred should be covered by the legislation that we propose.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Thank you. We now move on to the business statement.

Business of the House

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the business for next week.
MONDAY 15 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill.
TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the National Minimum Wage Bill.
WEDNESDAY 17 DECEMBER—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House, which will include the usual three-hour pre-recess debate.
Until about 8 pm, there will be a debate on the common fisheries policy on a Government motion. That will be followed by consideration of an allocation of time motion relating to the European Communities (Amendment) Bill.
THURSDAY 18 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]
FRIDAY 19 DECEMBER—Debate on welfare to work on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
MONDAY 22 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the School Standards and Framework Bill.
The provisional business for the first week back after the Christmas recess is as follows.
MONDAY 12 JANUARY AND TUESDAY 13 JANUARY— Second Reading of the Scotland Bill.
WEDNESDAY 14 JANUARY—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.—
Second Reading of the Regional Development Agencies Bill
THURSDAY 15 JANUARY—Consideration in Committee of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill.
FRIDAY 16 JANUARY—Private Members' Bills.
The House will also wish to know that on Wednesday 14 January there will be a debate on cocoa and chocolate in European Standing Committee A.
Details of the relevant documents will be given in theOfficial Report.
[Wednesday 14 January 1998:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community document: 8164/96, Cocoa and Chocolate. Relevant European Legislation Committee report: HC 155-ix (1997–98).]

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I thank the right hon. Lady for her statement and for giving the House the business for the first week after the recess. She is an enthusiastic and skilful Chairman of the Modernisation Committee, and I hope that she will explain to the House why, in practice, she is not only not modernising the sitting hours of the House but has chosen to ignore the Jopling rules by arranging controversial and potentially lengthy business on three successive Thursdays. It is true that the Government have somewhat incompetently overloaded their legislative programme—hence the need for yet another guillotine motion next week—but there is no reason why they should ride roughshod over the rules that they came into office

vowing to improve. Like me, she has heard the strictures of her Front Benchers on those matters. The House will be interested in her reply.
We were glad that the Government supported our social security policies against the rebellion of many of their Back Benchers last night. We were assured by the Secretary of State for Social Security that the Government will not be deflected from their intention further to reform benefits. Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate so that the Secretary of State for Social Security can explain those plans to her Back Benchers? In particular, can the Leader of the House say whether those plans include the taxation of benefits, especially for disabled people?
The Leader of the House heard the reaction of my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) to the Government's White Paper on open government, in which there were some things to welcome. Lofty intention is one thing, practice another, as we shall see. It was a pity that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was not quite generous-spirited enough to make it clear that his proposals built on many of the policies that we established. In the light of his remarks on open government, and of those of many of his colleagues, including the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), and the evident enthusiasm that has been expressed by hon. Members of all parties, will the Leader of the House comment on the fact that the Table Office has been instructed by the Government that it must not accept any question about the impact on employment of, or the level of, the national minimum wage?
Will the right hon. Lady explain how that extraordinary denial of information to Members sits alongside the Government's just expressed, but clearly imperfect, commitment to openness? Perhaps she would like to define what her Government mean by openness and to which areas of policy the principle of openness may be applied. Which are the no-go areas? Clearly the national minimum wage is one. Is not the Government's instruction to the Table Office a denial of every principle enunciated by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster just 30 minutes ago? In the interests of open government, I think we should be told. Whatever the right hon. Lady's reply, it is obvious that "Your Right to Know" does not apply to Members in respect of the national minimum wage.
Can the right hon. Lady clarify for the benefit of the House which Department has responsibility for the current crisis in the coal industry? We had thought that it was a matter for the President of the Board of Trade, but we read on page 22 of today's edition of the Financial Times that responsibility now rests with the Paymaster General. If departmental responsibility is to be shifted around in this way should not the principles of open government dictate that the House should be told? Is it a slap in the face for an inactive Department of Trade and Industry, as the Financial Times seems to have been briefed to say? Or is it some form of occupational therapy for the Paymaster General, who has clearly disqualified himself from talking about other people's savings?
When may we have a statement in the House from the right hon. Gentleman, rather than statements through lawyers at friendly press conferences, because we should all like to hear his clarification of the potential conflict between the Government's intention to close tax


loopholes and his own use of them. I am sure that, in the interests of open government, the right hon. Lady will wish to arrange for such a statement without delay.

Mrs. Taylor: I regret very much the attitude taken by the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) in her response, particularly as she has repeated allegations about the Paymaster General which are unworthy of the House and have been thoroughly refuted elsewhere.
Among the right hon. Lady's specific questions about the business for next week, she asked me about the Jopling proposals and the fact that there is serious business set down for some Thursdays this month and that serious business will be taken on some Thursdays in January.

Mr. Eric Forth: Good.

Mrs. Taylor: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman welcomes that.
The right hon. Lady seems to be unaware of the exact details of the Jopling agreement. It said that the House will try to rise early and take non-controversial business on the second half of Thursdays that are followed by a non-sitting Friday. None of the business that I have announced to be taken on Thursdays, which she regards as significant or controversial, will be followed by a non-sitting Friday.
In response to the right hon. Lady's comments about benefits reform and the need for a further debate, I do not believe that there is such a need, not least because the debate that Conservative Members chose to have on that matter on the most recent Opposition day fell somewhat flat because they had so little to say on the subject.
As for the coal industry, the DTI remains the lead Department. Of course, other Ministers in other Departments get involved in such issues and, given the right hon. Lady's experience in government, which is not that long ago, I should have thought that she could remember Cabinet Committees and the fact that Ministers assist each other when certain problems arise.
On freedom of information, the right hon. Lady was somewhat more dismissive than her colleague on the Front Bench, the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), who was far more generous in his welcome of the White Paper. She claims that her party started this process, but, if it did so, it did not get very far and stalled on every relevant occasion. The statement that has been given to the House today was a significant breakthrough and was long overdue.
The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk asked about the right to know and claimed that the Table Office was being instructed by the Government on what questions it should be accepting. She should have known the answer to that, not least from her experience in government. The Government cannot give instructions to the Table Office; nor would the Government try to do so.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will there be a statement next week on the outcome of the Kyoto summit on world climate change? Will my right hon. Friend arrange for there to be a full debate early in the

new year, in Government time, on the issue of climate change and the world's environment? Each time there is such a major conference, the House should be able to make a serious assessment of its impact and give some indication of how it wants the Government to behave at the next conference, whenever that may be.

Mrs. Taylor: The agreement reached at Kyoto is certainly historic and will help to counter the problems of climate change. The part played in those negotiations by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister was extremely important and constructive. I expect that my right hon. Friend will be looking to make a statement in the House in the not-too-distant future. I cannot promise my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) the sort of debate that he wants in the near future, but I will bear his request in mind.

Mr. Paul Tyler: The right hon. Lady is rightly protective of the rights and privileges of the House and its Members. Does she agree that any threat to those rights and privileges, in particular any attempt to bully Members and any attempt to exert improper influence over Members of the House—I think that that is the definition that the Joint Committee on Privileges is now examining—should be resisted? The hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) reported to the House that he had to change his view on a specific piece of legislation owing to the pressure exerted on him by the standing orders of the Labour party. Can the Leader of the House give us an explicit assurance that members of the Labour party who voted with the Liberal Democrats last night against a Conservative proposal will not be subjected to undue pressure of that sort, with their livelihoods being threatened if they cease to be Members?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: If I had to rely on the hon. Gentleman, I would be dead.

Mr. Tyler: Can the Leader of the House give us an assurance that the new, draconian standing orders of the parliamentary Labour party will not be allowed to interfere with the proper judgment of Members.

Mrs. Taylor: That was a good try, but this is an internal matter for the Labour party. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said, I do not think that he needs any help from the Liberal Democrats.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South): Will my right hon. Friend consider, perhaps in Government time and in the not-too-distant future, a short debate on a matter of which I have had personal experience: the success of treatment carried out in the national health service? We do not seem to have any intelligence unit to record that treatment, its results and the successes of the service; nor do we seem to have any means of recording best practice so that best practice initiated in one area can be disseminated to other areas. That may be a useful adjunct for us to debate.

Mrs. Taylor: Many Members will be aware that my hon. Friend has had experience of the health service, which was, I am glad to say, extremely successful. He may be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has, as part of the White Paper process,


taken on board some of the points that my hon. Friend has made and has said that he is in favour of a clinical audit and of the establishment of a national institute of clinical excellence. That organisation would be able to do the job that my hon. Friend rightly says is necessary if we are continually to improve the national health service.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray): Can the Leader of the House arrange to have a statement made early next week in connection with the agriculture industry? Is she aware that farmers and consumers alike are confused by the evidence being produced by the various scientific organisations? We are particularly concerned about whether the Government will make any compensation available to our agricultural communities as a result of the appreciation of sterling.

Mrs. Taylor: I cannot guarantee any statement on any particular day, but the hon. Lady will know that Ministers are well aware of the concerns of people involved in agriculture and that there was a full statement last week from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I am hopeful that there may be a statement in the House on BSE issues and the current situation in farming before the recess.

Ms Joan Walley: May I simply reiterate the request made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn)? It is crucial that, as soon as the Deputy Prime Minister gets back and has had a chance to recover from all his negotiations in Kyoto, we have not only a statement, but an opportunity for a full debate. The implications of the agreement are so wide and far reaching that it is crucial that we set out in the House how we are to move the matter forward on the world platform.

Mrs. Taylor: We shall have environment Question Time on Tuesday, but I can well understand why my hon. Friend thinks that we need more time to discuss these issues and to get a full report from my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. The agreement is an important one: for the first time, it sets binding targets for developed countries to cut their greenhouse gas emissions, and it is, therefore, something we should all welcome. The House will want to be informed of the details and I am sure that my right hon. Friend will want to take an opportunity to do that as soon as possible.

Mr. Eric Forth: May we please have an urgent debate on the rights of Members of Parliament, especially when on the premises of the Palace of Westminster? Specifically, could that debate centre on the rights of all Members when voting together in the same Lobby—especially when the Conservatives are supporting the Government for supporting the Conservatives, as happened last night—and on whether, in such cases, all Members will be completely free to approach Ministers, particularly the Prime Minister, without being molested?
Will the right hon. Lady conduct an investigation into the disgraceful incident last night, when one of my colleagues was molested simply as a result of trying to approach the Prime Minister as a fellow Member of Parliament?

Mrs. Taylor: I do not think that there is any need for a debate and, following last night's point of order, I made

inquiries among those who were present on that occasion. Several people made it clear to me that the Conservative Member who was the subject of the point of order approached the Prime Minister and tried to interrupt a conversation that was taking place, in a most boorish and ungallant manner. I do not think that there is any need to discuss matters of that sort.

Ms Debra Shipley: In view of the excellent work carried out by nurses and staff in our emergency services and of the growing concern about their safety among the public and professionals, will my right hon. Friend make time next week for a debate on the safety of our emergency units?

Mrs. Taylor: I know that there have been cases recently of violence in emergency units—they can be tense places, and people can become extremely upset. The Minister of State, Department of Health is looking at giving further protection to people, especially women, who require protection in that situation. I do not think that it is possible to have a full debate next week, although it might be possible to raise such issues during the three-hour debate on Wednesday morning.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: This is the third time in just over six months that the Government are imposing a guillotine motion. Does the right hon. Lady not appreciate that the European Communities (Amendment) Bill gives more powers to the European Parliament, extends the competencies of the European Union, extends qualified majority voting, reinforces citizenship and dwells on economic and monetary union? It is clearly a profound constitutional matter for the House, and to curtail debate by a guillotine, which is the most outrageous expression of Executive power, is wholly inappropriate.

Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Member, who is extremely well informed, will know that this is by no means the first occasion that a guillotine has been used on a Bill of that sort; it was used not least by his own Government in previous days. It is an important Bill and we have had 19 hours of discussion so far. We have had the same number of days of discussion as we had in 1986 on what became the Single European Act. Most people would agree that that was a major piece of legislation, yet consideration was completed satisfactorily following that guillotine. I notice that, on Second Reading of that Act, nowhere near as many Members voted as did on the Bill that we are now discussing. Although he has strong views, the hon. Gentleman has to realise that virtually no progress has been made on the Bill and it is for better discussion of all parts of the Bill that we are having a guillotine at this stage.

Mr. Paul Flynn: When may we have a debate on procedures in the House? Following the statement by the shadow Leader of the House, I went to the Table Office and tabled a question asking what representations had been received by the Government on the possible link between the minimum wage and job numbers. That question was accepted without demur by the Table Office, but they expressed some bewilderment at the statement made a short while ago in the Chamber. Of course, questions that are hypothetical are not allowed


and they never have been. May we have a debate on procedure, as that would be useful for all Members and a particularly useful educational experience for the shadow Leader of the House?

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend clearly knows better than Conservative Members how to exercise his right to know. As I said earlier, there is no possibility of the Government's trying to restrict the questions that are asked, and the Table Office would certainly not tolerate that.

Mr. Laurence Robertson: Following the question asked by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), may I urge that we have a full debate on the agriculture industry and on the beef situation in particular? I would not expect the right hon. Lady to be aware of this, but last night 400 farmers descended on a meat distribution depot in my constituency; they stopped lorries going this way and that, and are planning further disruptions. I am sure that no one wants to see such action, but, on the other hand, many people are very sympathetic to the farmers' case, especially as we have a beef export ban and further bans on meat, but no guarantee whatever of the quality and safety of meat coming from abroad.

Mrs. Taylor: I can well understand why the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the disruptions he mentions. I said earlier that Ministers are aware of and concerned about the situation and that we are hopeful that there can be a statement before the House rises for the Christmas recess.

Mr. Hugh Bayley: May I thank my right hon. Friend for giving the House notice that European Standing Committee A will be considering the draft chocolate directive? She will be aware that the European Commission proposed a good compromise which did not discriminate against British chocolate or continental chocolate, but that the European Parliament proposed some quite extraordinary amendments backing up the commercial interests of some European chocolate manufacturers—those of France, Belgium and Germany—against those of others, including ourselves, the Irish, the Portuguese and those in Scandinavia.
Will my right hon. Friend convey to the Ministers who will appear before European Standing Committee A my strongly held view, as a Member of Parliament representing a constituency with many confectionery workers, that the European Parliament's proposal would be bad for the chocolate industry and bad for jobs, and that Britain should reject it and go for the fair compromise proposed by the Commission, which will provide a level playing field for all brands of chocolate manufactured by all countries in the Community?

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): And all because the lady loves Milk Tray.

Mrs. Taylor: I do not know what is made in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley), so my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) had better be careful in what he says.
My hon. Friend the Member for City of York is right to raise concerns relating to a subject about which I know he is well informed. I shall certainly bring the points he has raised to the attention of my hon. Friends who will be in charge of that debate. I take this opportunity to remind the House that all Members can attend such Committees.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the right hon. Lady will make time for a statement by the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning on planning procedures? The City of York council is currently undergoing a massive consultation exercise on a proposed park and ride scheme in the Vale of York. The only people who are not being consulted in that exercise are the residents of Rawcliffe, where the scheme is to be situated. I believe that they deserve a statement on that matter from the Minister responsible for planning, and I hope that the Government will make time for that.

Mrs. Taylor: Obviously, that is a matter for local consideration in the first instance, but I remind the hon. Lady that we have environment questions on Tuesday.

Mr. David Watts (St. Helens, North): Is my right hon. Friend is aware of the damning report produced by the National Audit Office on the performance of Ofwat and, if she is, given the high cost of water in the United Kingdom and the poor performance of water companies, will she make time available in the House to discuss that important issue?

Mrs. Taylor: I agree with my hon. Friend that the issue is important to every person in the country. The Government are undertaking a review of utility regulation and considering ways to strengthen customer protection. We welcome the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, and we have made careful note of his recommendations.

Mr. Paul Burstow: When can we have a debate on the performance of the privatised rail industry and especially the train operating companies, not least Connex South Central, which services my constituency and has recently witnessed a 138 per cent. increase in complaints about its cancellation of services, overcrowded trains and generally inadequate investment in rolling stock? When can we have a debate so that we may discover the Government's plans for our rail industry and how they intend to make a difference to it?

Mrs. Taylor: There are also transport questions on Tuesday, so the hon. Gentleman may be able to raise issues then. I cannot promise a full debate of the type that he requests, but I remind him of the three-hour Adjournment debate on Wednesday.

Helen Jones: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware of the campaign by The Independent on Sunday to decriminalise cannabis, but I wonder whether she is aware that the National Association of Head Teachers today issued stringent guidance to schools on combating the menace of drugs. In the light of that, does she agree that we should have a more consistent line on that issue, and will she arrange


for an early debate in the House so that those of us who believe that the drugs menace should be fought, not given into, may have an opportunity to debate the matter?

Mrs. Taylor: I very much welcome and accept my hon. Friend's comments. I do not think that we are likely to get an objective assessment from a conference organised by a newspaper which has the explicit aim of decriminalising cannabis. On the other point that she raised, about the report by head teachers, we are aware that we need good education in schools. The Department for Education and Employment will be issuing some targeted guidance in the near future and Keith Hellawell, the UK anti-drugs co-ordinator, is developing plans to audit and do a full assessment of what works best in ensuring that young people do not fall into the drugs trap.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: The Leader of the House will recall that, during the general election campaign, one of Labour's claims was that the election was partly a question of trust. Given the widespread disappointment in the country that the word "trust" has been interpreted as meaning either blind trusts in favour of some Ministers or offshore trusts in favour of others, may we have a debate next week to establish exactly what "trust" now means to new Labour?

Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman would do well to read the most recent poll of Tory Members.

Mr. John Wilkinson: As it is not only Yorkies that are threatened by the dictates of the European Union but the livelihoods of many of my constituents who work in duty-free shops at Heathrow and on airliners for British carriers, and many Members' constituents who work at airports, or for airlines or shipping companies throughout the country, will the right hon. Lady ensure that the appropriate Minister comes to the House to explain the Government's policy which, until now, has been one of total acquiescence in the job-destroying policy of the European Union?

Mrs. Taylor: Ministers keep the House informed as appropriate. We had a debate on the European Union last Thursday.

Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley): I shall try to be in order this time, Madam Speaker.
The Leader of the House said that she hoped that, before the recess, we would have a statement on farming. That is a welcome small step, but is there any chance of a larger step in the form of a day's debate on farming issues as soon as possible? As I represent a rural constituency, I want to speak about the crisis in farming, but that is not the only matter that I want to raise. Today, a butcher telephoned me to say that hundreds of his customers—including four doctors—had told him that they still wished to buy beef on the bone, and that they were still doing so in his shop in my constituency. Is it possible to have a debate so that all these issues may be debated properly?

Mrs. Taylor: Many Labour Members have farming interests, including my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. He has been very

forthcoming in giving information to the House and the best that I can say at the moment is that we are hopeful that a full statement can be made before the House rises.

Mr. Owen Paterson: During the general election campaign, not one Labour candidate in Shropshire told the electors of Shropshire that, in the event of a Labour Government coming to power, they would impose a local government settlement such as the one that was announced last week. It has brought £9.7 million in cuts and a 17 per cent. increase in council tax. The county is in a state of shock. May we please have a debate next week on that huge betrayal?

Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman ought to know that the orders are always debated when they are laid before the House. That will be done next year. However, if he is asking us to say why we could not anticipate during the general election campaign a settlement that was made only a short time ago, he should know that, in my opinion, it would have been outrageous for us to be audacious enough to suggest that we could precisely guess such details that far in advance.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: May we have an early debate on the role in the House, and in the general performance of his duties, of the Minister without Portfolio? We are increasingly seeing that his influence on his colleagues—such as his undermining of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—is making it clear that he is the modern Rasputin of politics.
Given the farcical performance at recent Department for Culture, Media and Sport questions—the Minister without Portfolio spins out his answers to the few friends that he has left sitting behind him, so that Opposition Members' questions are never properly answered—and given that the hon. Gentleman declines to answer written questions of the type that I have repeatedly tabled, is it not clear that we need the second most powerful person in the Government to be questioned properly, that we need his role to be properly debated and that we need to have a full debate so that the real Deputy Prime Minister is exposed to public view?

Mrs. Taylor: People see a great deal of the real Deputy Prime Minister, and I hope that he will make a statement on Kyoto when he returns.

Mr. John Bercow: In view of the right hon. Lady's failure properly to answer my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House, will she undertake to find time next week for the Paymaster General to make a statement about his intervention in the coal industry, which is likely to result in miners who are thrown out of work losing up to £10,000 each of their redundancy money?

Mrs. Taylor: There is no need for any such statement.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: Last night, when the heavies had finished duffing up my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) in the Division Lobby, the Prime Minister made a tough decision not to join his beleaguered colleagues on the Front Bench but instead to go to yet another glitzy soirée at Downing street. Can the right hon. Lady afford us time


to debate the £7.4 million that the Government have spent on entertainment since they came to office? It really is a case of "Hello Tony, Let's go party."

Mrs. Taylor: I have no plans to arrange an invitation to No. 10 for the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Shaun Woodward: Will the Leader of the House find time early next week for the Minister for Public Health to make a statement on the ban on tobacco advertising in sport, given that she appears not just to have failed to follow, but to have deliberately broken, the 1996 Cabinet guidelines?

Mrs. Taylor: There is no evidence whatever that that is so. My hon. Friend has made her position clear, and took clear steps at a very early stage to ensure that she complied with the guidelines. The permanent secretary and the Cabinet Secretary are satisfied that she did.

Mr. Andrew Stunell: I thank the Leader of the House for what she said about a statement on Kyoto, and urge her to go further and to impress on Ministers the need for a debate in Government time on climate change. That issue concerns members of all parties—[Interruption.]—although it seems of less concern on the Conservative Benches. During the United Kingdom's presidency of the European Union, perhaps the right hon. Lady will press Ministers to ensure that European Council meetings are promptly reported to, and debated in, the House.

Mrs. Taylor: We have followed the convention of making statements following Council meetings. 1, too, have noticed considerable pressure from Labour and Liberal Democrat Members on the subject of Kyoto, although not one word has been said by Conservative

Members. That may tell us something about their lack of concern for these issues. I have said that I hope for a statement; I will bear in mind the request for a debate.

Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby): I welcome the fact that the right hon. Lady has said that there may be a statement on BSE next week, but can she find time for a full-blown debate on agriculture, as previously requested? There was a short debate on the rural economy yesterday, but no sooner had the Minister spoken than he resigned. [Interruption.] We should like to know what the Government's position is. Members of all parties have constituents working in the rural economy, and the right hon. Lady must realise that there is a real crisis in farming, in south Leicestershire and elsewhere. There may not be a crisis in Dewsbury, but there certainly is in the rest of the country.

Mrs. Taylor: Many constituencies include farming interests and food interests. All our constituents consume food and need proper reassurance. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends found his question so amusing—I thought it was extremely serious, which is why I announced earlier that I hoped for a statement before the House rose. That is not a guarantee, it is a hope; but it is a sign of how seriously Ministers treat the situation.

Mr. Andrew George (St. Ives): Will the right hon. Lady ensure that the shipping Minister comes to the House before the recess to make a statement on the growing concern for maritime safety? There have been a number of incidents in the fishing industry, and more lives are being lost. I refer particularly to the recent loss of the Margaretha Maria, from Newland in Cornwall, when four fishermen died. Their children will face this Christmas without their fathers—and we still do not even know where the vessel is.

Mrs. Taylor: That is indeed a serious issue. I am sure that Members on both sides would like to express their condolences to the families involved in the tragedy. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman will have a chance to raise the issue before Christmas, but the open debate next Wednesday morning, which we have before each recess, is particularly useful for raising such topics.

Points of Order

Helen Jackson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) was a member of a Back-Bench cross-party fact-finding visit to Northern Ireland this week, during which we had a number of useful private meetings with parties and organisations. He left the visit early to come back to Prime Minister's questions, because his question to the Prime Minister had been selected.
Not only did the hon. Gentleman leave the visit early, but when he came back here he raised an issue arising out of one of these private meetings. The assertion that he made was totally—I cannot say untrue, can I?—misleading. I wanted to put the record straight and to ask for your guidance, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Owen Paterson: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman's point does not relate to this one, which I will deal with first. What Members say in the House is a matter for them. Providing the language that they use is good parliamentary language, I cannot intervene. Sometimes Members ought to be a little more circumspect in what they say after private meetings, however.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it not conventional, when a Member intends to refer to another Member in such terms, that she should give the latter notice of her intention?

Madam Speaker: Indeed.

Helen Jackson: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I placed letters on the Board not just to the Member concerned but to the political party that nominated him and to the leader of that party.

Madam Speaker: I just hope that letters informing Members that they are to be mentioned will be put on the Board in good time, not at the last moment.

Mr. Paterson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish to clear my name. I have been in the House for only six months, but I am accustomed to going up to senior members of my party, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), in the Lobbies, asking them questions and getting friendly answers. Last night was my first opportunity to ask the Prime Minister a question on equal terms in the Lobby—I understand that we are all equal Members of the House.
You, Madam Speaker, have just heard that local government funding is a burning issue in Shropshire. I have twice written to the Minister for Local Government and Housing, but she has refused to see me. I therefore approached the Prime Minister to ask whether he could bring his influence to bear. I assure you that I approached him in a friendly way. I waited for a chance when he was free, which he was—for a very short time. My story can be corroborated by my hon. Friends the Members for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), for Guildford

(Mr. St. Aubyn)—who is in a Treasury Committee meeting—and for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth). I can assure the Leader of the House that I am not "boorish".

Madam Speaker: That was barely a point of order, but the hon. Gentleman has got his point on the record. I regret the fact that a Minister has not been able to see him. When I was a Back Bencher I would never have approached a Prime Minister—I was always rather intimidated by Prime Ministers. I should like to help the hon. Gentleman, so if he will let me see the exchange of correspondence with the relevant Minister I shall try to be helpful. It is the Minister responsible, not the Prime Minister, who should be available.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

AGENDA 2000: THE NEW FINANCIAL FRAMEWORK

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 9984/97, Agenda 2000, as it relates to the new financial framework for the European Community; and supports the Government in its policy of achieving enlargement of the European Union while maintaining the Own Resources Ceiling of 1.27 per cent.—[Mr. Clelland.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made,

AGENDA 2000: REFORM OF THE COMMON GRICULTURAL POLICY

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 9984/97, Agenda 2000, as it relates to reform of the Common Agricultural Policy; and supports the Government's objective of a market-oriented CAP with less emphasis on production-related agricultural support and more emphasis on targeted environmental and rural objectives.—[Mr. Clelland.]

Amendment proposed, to leave out from 'House' to the end of the Question and add
'whilst recognising the need for urgent and radical reform of the CAP, declines to take note of European Document No. 9984/97, Agenda 2000, unless and until the Government gives beef farmers the urgent support they need if there is to be a viable British beef industry in the future.'.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

Question, That the amendment be made, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees):—

The House divided: Ayes 128, Noes 258.

Division No. 118]
[5.8 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Burns, Simon


Arbuthnot, James
Butterfill, John


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Cash, William


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Chapman, Sir Sydney


Baldry, Tony
(Chipping Barnet)


Beggs, Roy
Clappison, James


Bercow, John
Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)


Blunt, Crispin
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)


Boswell, Tim
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)



Brady, Graham
Collins, Tim


Brazier, Julian
Colvin, Michael


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Browning, Mrs Angela
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)






Day, Stephen
McLoughlin, Patrick


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Madel, Sir David


Duncan, Alan
Major, Rt Hon John


Duncan Smith, Iain
Malins, Humfrey


Evans, Nigel
Maples, John


Faber, David
May, Mrs Theresa


Fallon, Michael
Moss, Malcolm


Forsythe, Clifford
Nicholls, Patrick


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Norman, Archie


Fox, Dr Liam
Ottaway, Richard


Fraser, Christopher
Page, Richard


Gale, Roger
Paice, James


Garnier, Edward
Paterson, Owen


Gibb, Nick
Prior, David


Gill, Christopher
Randall, John


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair
Robathan, Andrew


Gray, James
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Green, Damian
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Greenway, John
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Grieve, Dominic
Ruffley, David


Hague, Rt Hon William
St Aubyn, Nick


Hammond, Philip
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Hawkins, Nick
Shepherd, Richard


Hayes, John
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Spicer, Sir Michael


Horam, John
Spring, Richard


Howard Rt Hon Michael
Swayne, Desmond


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Syms, Robert


Hunter, Andrew
Taylor, Ian (Esher& Walton)


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Thompson, William


Johnson Smith,
Tredinnick, David


Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Trend, Michael


Key, Robert
Trimble, David


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Viggers, Peter


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Walter, Robert


Lansley, Andrew
Wardle, Charles


Leigh, Edward
Waterson, Nigel


Letwin, Oliver
Wells, Bowen


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Lidington, David
Whittingdale, John


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Wilkinson, John


Loughton, Tim
Willetts, David


Luff, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


McCartney, Robert (N Down)
Woodward, Shaun


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Tellers for the Ayes:


MacKay, Andrew
Mr. Oliver Heald and


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Mr. James Cran.




NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Borrow, David


Ainger, Nick
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Allen, Graham
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Atkins, Charlotte
Buck, Ms Karen


Austin, John
Burden, Richard


Banks, Tony
Burgon, Colin


Barnes, Harry
Byers, Stephen


Bayley, Hugh
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Beard, Nigel
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Canavan, Dennis


Bennett, Andrew F
Cann, Jamie


Bermingham, Gerald
Casale, Roger


Best, Harold
Caton, Martin


Betts, Clive
Cawsey, Ian


Blears, Ms Hazel
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Blizzard, Bob
Chisholm, Malcolm


Boateng, Paul
Clapham, Michael





Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hopkins, Kelvin


Clark, Dr Lynda
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hoyle, Lindsay


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretfond)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Humble, Mrs Joan


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hurst, Alan


Clelland, David
Hutton, John


Coffey, Ms Ann
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cohen, Harry
Ingram, Adam


Coleman, Iain
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Colman, Tony
Jamieson, David


Connarty, Michael
Jenkins, Brian


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Johnson, Miss Melanie


Cooper, Yvette
(Welwyn Hatheld)


Corbett, Robin
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Cranston, Ross
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Crausby, David
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Keeble, Ms Sally


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Cummings, John
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Dalyell, Tam
Kemp, Fraser


Darvill, Keith
Khabra, Piara S


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Kingham, Ms Tess


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Laxton, Bob


Dawson, Hilton
Lepper, David


Denham, John
Levitt, Tom


Dismore, Andrew
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Dobbin, Jim
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Doran, Frank
Linton, Martin


Dowd, Jim
Livingstone, Ken


Drew, David
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Drown, Ms Julia
Lock, David


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Love, Andrew


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
McAllion, John


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
McAvoy, Thomas


Edwards, Huw
McCabe, Steve


Efford, Clive
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Ellman, Mrs Louise
McDonagh, Siobhain


Ennis, Jeff
McDonnell, John


Etherington, Bill
McIsaac, Shona


Field, Rt Hon Frank
McNamara, Kevin


Fitzpatrick, Jim
McNulty, Tony


Fitzsimons, Lorna
MacShane, Denis


Flynn, Paul
McWalter, Tony


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McWilliam, John


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Mallaber, Judy


Fyfe, Maria
Marek, Dr John


Galloway, George
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Gapes, Mike
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Martlew, Eric


Gerrard, Neil
Michael, Alun


Gibson, Dr Ian
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Mitchell, Austin


Godman, Norman A
Moffatt, Laura


Godsiff, Roger
Morley, Elliot


Goggins, Paul
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Mudie, George


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mullin, Chris


Grogan, John
Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)


Gunnell, John
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Norris, Dan


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
O'Brien, Bill (Nonvanton)


Hanson, David
Olner, Bill


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Organ, Mrs Diana


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Hepburn, Stephen
Pendry, Tom


Heppell, John
Perham, Ms Linda


Hesford, Stephen
Pickthall, Colin


Hill, Keith
Pike, Peter L


Hinchliffe, David
Plaskitt, James


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Pope, Greg


Home Robertson, John
Pound, Stephen


Hoon, Geoffrey
Powell, Sir Raymond






Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Stringer, Graham


Purchase, Ken
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Quinn, Lawrie
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Radice, Giles



Rammell, Bill
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Raynsford, Nick
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Timms, Stephen


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Touhig, Don


Rooney, Terry
Trickett, Jon


Rowlands, Ted
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Ruane, Chris
Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Salter, Martin
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Sawford, Phil
Vis, Dr Rudi


Sedgemore, Brian
Walley, Ms Joan


Shaw, Jonathan
Wareing, Robert N


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Watts, David


Shipley, Ms Debra
White, Brian


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Singh, Marsha
Wicks, Malcolm


Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)



Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Winnick, David


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Soley, Clive
Wood, Mike


Southworth, Ms Helen
Woolas, Phil


Spellar, John
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Squire, Ms Rachel
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Wyatt, Derek


Steinberg, Gerry



Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Tellers for the Noes:


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Jane Kennedy and


Stinchcombe, Paul
Janet Anderson

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees), and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 9984/97, Agenda 2000, as it relates to reform of the Common Agricultural Policy; and supports the Government's objective of a

market-oriented CAP with less emphasis on production-related agricultural support and more emphasis on targeted environmental and rural objectives.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

That the draft Air Quality Regulations 1997, which were laid before this House on 11th November, be approved.

ROAD TRAFFIC

That the draft Road Traffic (Vehicle Emissions) (Fixed Penalty) Regulations 1997, which were laid before this House on 24th November, be approved.

RATING AND VALUATION

That the draft Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1997, which were laid before this House on 25th November, be approved.—[Mr. Clelland.]

Question agreed to.

DEREGULATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 18(1)(a) (Consideration of draft deregulation orders),

LICENCE TRANSFERS

That the draft Deregulation (Licence Transfers) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 17th November, be approved.—[Mr. Clelland.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New clause 1

INTERCEPTION OF COMMUNICATIONS

—In subsection (4) of section 9 of the Interception of Communications Act 1985 the following paragraph shall be inserted—
(bbb) an offence under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 including a scheduled offence within the meaning of section I of that Act;".'.—[Mr. Trimble.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. David Trimble: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I am glad that we have an opportunity on Report to consider amending the Bill. It gives us a chance to put before the House several issues that we should have preferred to raise in Committee. Unfortunately, as things turned out, we were deprived of that opportunity. None the less, we now have a chance to do just that.
I appreciate that time is getting on and that hon. Members wish to move on to other matters, so I shall not dwell at great length on the points in the amendments. However, new clause 1 raises a very important issue to which we must pay some attention. I proceed in light of the assumption, which is clearly shared by the Government, that there is a continuing need for emergency law in Northern Ireland. That is clearly the case as the Government are extending the life of the legislation and providing for unified emergency legislation embodying both the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act and the prevention of terrorism Act.
I believe that the Government's judgment in that respect is correct and that there is a continuing need for emergency legislation. I believe that that need will become much more apparent in future months because I fear that the present lull in terrorism will not be much prolonged. Unfortunately, come the new year, I fear that we shall be dealing with some familiar problems.
One of the great difficulties that we face in combating terrorism is obtaining evidence for convictions. I should have thought that the Government would be extremely anxious to gather evidence for convictions. After all, in the Bill, the Government are removing from the statute book the power of detention or internment—measures to which Governments faced with terrorism have had recourse because of the absence of evidence and the consequent inability to obtain convictions. Therefore, the Government should be keen to gather evidence that supports convictions.
There is a source of evidence available that has not been used hitherto: evidence obtained from intercepted telephone communications. That is known in the United States as "wire-tap evidence". Such evidence is not admissible in the United Kingdom. I think that that is a

mistake, and the intention of new clause 1 is to make wire-tap evidence admissible in cases that fall within the terms of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act.
Interestingly, this issue—which we have pursued over a number of years in the House—was considered by Lord Lloyd of Berwick in his inquiry into anti-terrorist legislation. In considering the arguments for and against the admissibility of wire-tap evidence, he made several points. I can do no better than to quote from one paragraph of his report. In dealing with the arguments in favour of an amendment of this nature, Lord Lloyd said:
`The first and most obvious argument is that evidence of intercepted material is admissible to prove guilt in each of the countries which I have visited, and in every other country of which I have knowledge. The United Kingdom stands alone in excluding such material. Thus in the United States the use of intercept material in evidence is regarded as essential. In many instances, including high-profile cases involving the New York Mafia, convictions otherwise unobtainable have been secured by the use of intercept material. I put to officers of the FBI the suggestion that they were having second thoughts about the use of intercept material. I could find no support for this suggestion. In France I was told that intercept material has proved very valuable in terrorist cases. Thus, some 80 per cent. of the evidence against those suspected of involvement in the 1995 bombings is derived from intercept. Similarly, in Australia interception is regarded as an 'extremely valuable aid to criminal prosecution' …664 prosecutions for offences ranging from murder to serious fraud were based on intercepted material, nearly 500 of those prosecutions being for drug offences. Convictions were obtained in 87 per cent. of the cases. Often, when presented with the evidence of an intercept, the defendant pleads guilty.
I highlight the phrase:
The United Kingdom stands alone in excluding such material.
Why on earth does the United Kingdom impose that unique handicap on itself when dealing with serious crime, including offences of this nature? There is no sense in that whatever.
Indeed, not allowing intercepted telephone communications to be admitted in evidence is highly illogical, given that other intercepted conversations are admissible. If a bug is placed inside a house and a conversation is tape recorded or transmitted by some wireless device to somewhere else and recorded there, that intercepted conversation is admissible in evidence. People can be wired up with recording devices attached to their body, and the conversations that they have with other people are admissible.
A number of years ago the important offence of directing terrorist organisations was created under the emergency provisions legislation. Only two convictions have been obtained, one of which was as a result of people who were wired up speaking to a suspected leader of a paramilitary organisation, whose admission of involvement was recorded, and that evidence supported a conviction.
The argument is clear and, on the strength of it, Lord Lloyd was asked to consider permanent legislation in the event of terrorism in Northern Ireland being over. He recommended that such provisions should be introduced. I have not bothered to check, but I think that the previous Government, when they received Lord Lloyd's report, said that they would implement that provision. The legislation should be amended as I have suggested.
The only argument against such a provision of which I am aware is that, if such evidence were admissible, those involved in terrorism and smuggling would know the


extent to which communications were intercepted. But people know that already, and in any case they still have to communicate; they cannot conduct their operations without communication.
Some people may be concerned about the implications of such a provision, but the new clause would not compel the Government to introduce wire-tap evidence: it would merely give them the power to do so. The intercepts would not have to be disclosed to the defence unless the prosecution thought it desirable to rely on such evidence. To that extent, it would be an enabling provision. It would end a serious anomaly: it is incredible that, alone in the civilised world, the United Kingdom does not make use of wire-tap evidence.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): The hon. Gentleman has made some valid and strong points, to which I shall respond. However, in his opening remarks he said that we were dealing with amendments now rather than in Committee, and he referred obliquely to the way in which the Committee procedure had been handled. I want to say for the record that no amendments were tabled in Committee. If they had been tabled, we could have dealt with them in an appropriate way and at an appropriate time. I also remind the House that something like 12 hours were dedicated to the Bill in Committee. That is also worth putting on record.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether a Standing Committee on a non-urgent Bill has ever sat on the first day of its proceedings from 4.30 in the afternoon to 5 o'clock the following morning? Is not that an abuse of our procedures, and also why there was not time for amendments to be dealt with later in the Committee stage, as is usual? Is not that the point that the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) was making, and is not the Minister ashamed of himself? Would he be good enough to apologise to the House?

Mr. Ingram: I am not ashamed of myself, and an apology is not necessary. If hon. Members are interested in the history of the Bill, they should add up the amount of time Conservative Members spoke in the debate, and then judge the quality of their contributions against the time taken. If amendments had been tabled, we could have had much more substantial debates. I am not criticising the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), but, as he said that we now have an opportunity to deal with amendments, it is important to point out that no amendments were tabled in Committee. The official Opposition did not table any amendments: they have tabled an amendment this evening. I was directing my comments at them, and if anyone should feel ashamed, it is the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), who failed to carry out his responsibilities and provide proper and adequate opposition. Perhaps we are now getting that opposition.

Mr. MacKay: I do not want to detain the House unduly, but I asked the Minister a specific question. Can he recall the first sitting of a Standing Committee not starting until—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Perhaps I can help the hon. Member. We are discussing a

new clause, which is a specific matter, and we should refer to that, not to the length of the Committee or what happened in Committee.

Mr. Ingram: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to deal with the helpful comments of the hon. Member for Upper Bann. If new clause 1 were enacted, it would allow evidence from intercepted material acquired under an Interception of Communications Act 1985 warrant to be adduced in court if it related to a scheduled offence within the terms of section 1 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann raised this matter during the debate on counter-terrorism legislation on 30 October. He will recall that the Home Secretary referred to Lord Lloyd's proposals in respect of section 9 of the Interception of Communications Act 1985. In response to the hon. Gentleman, he said:
The hon. Gentleman asked about Lord Lloyd's proposals in respect of section 9 of the Interception of Communications Act 1985. That is a complicated issue. Lord Lloyd sought to distinguish between interception evidence that arose in respect of a national security investigation—which he said should be adducible in evidence—and other interception evidence, from a customs, police or security service intercept, in respect of the investigation of a serious crime, which he said should not be adducible in court.
That is one of the most complex of Lord Lloyd's recommendations. Many take the view that it is very difficult to draw the distinction in practice. There is much to be said on both sides of the argument about whether intercept evidence should be adducible in court".—[Official Report, 30 October 1997; Vol. 299, c. 1032–33.]
He went on to explain his proposals for dealing with this matter.
The hon. Gentleman gave a neat precis of Lord Lloyd's report. I am sure that he has gone through Lord Lloyd's examination of this matter, and agrees with me that it is extensive and detailed. Lord Lloyd weighed up the issues, and came down on one side. Rather than go through all the arguments, which would detain the House unnecessarily, I recommend that hon. Members read chapter 7 of the report, which will enable them to understand the detail and breadth of the arguments.
On 30 October, the Home Secretary said that the Government were considering this matter carefully. We understand why the hon. Gentleman has raised this issue: it is important and must be considered with particular care in the context of Northern Ireland. I repeat that the hon. Member has made a strong case for his point of view.

Mr. Lembit öpik: I accept that the Government are hesitant about changing this part of the Bill at such a late stage, but does the Minister accept that he now has a good opportunity to make a change which, although it may appear to be a housekeeping change, would significantly strengthen the security forces' opportunities to bring terrorists to book in the courts?

Mr. Ingram: Such matters must be weighed in the balance, and that is what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is doing. I do not think that housekeeping is the right way in which to deal with such important issues, especially in the context of national security and the relative importance of the crimes whose perpetrators we seek to bring to book. That is why my right hon.


Friend the Home Secretary said that the matter must be examined comprehensively. He went on to say that it would be premature to proceed as had been proposed in regard to the general issue, and I agree. I think that it would be wrong to introduce a straightforward housekeeping measure, or to act in any other specific way relating to Northern Ireland, given that my right hon. Friend is considering the position in relation to the interception regime as it applies to the United Kingdom as a whole.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the Minister accept that the general view in Northern Ireland is that the measures in the Bill are confidence-building measures aimed at those whose compliance the Government seek, namely the terrorists? Would not the confidence of the ordinary decent citizen be built up if the new clause could serve as another weapon in the armoury of those who are attempting to enforce law and order? Would that not build up the confidence of the vast majority of peaceable citizens in both communities?

Mr. Ingram: I entirely reject the hon. and learned Gentleman's opening remarks. If we engaged in a discussion about the underlying philosophy and purpose of the Bill, and whether or not it is a confidence-building measure, we would spend considerable time—time that was available to us on Second Reading, which was cut short an hour and a half before it was due to end. I have no intention of going into the details, but I entirely reject the suggestion that the Bill was designed to appease terrorists. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that, given the mood in Northern Ireland, the Bill would somehow build up confidence on the other side of the community. As I have tried to explain, we want to get the legislation right. It is complex legislation. It is right for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to look at it in the context of the United Kingdom, and for us to ensure that it is robust enough to withstand detailed examination.
I ask the hon. Member for Upper Bann, and others who have spoken, to accept my assurances. We are undertaking an active and comprehensive examination. The last Government did not act, although they may have given an indication that they would; I cannot say whether they did, but it should be possible to verify whether they felt that action was necessary. They did not act because' they, too, thought that the proposals should be examined properly.
On the basis of my assurances, I ask the hon. Member for Upper Bann to withdraw his new clause. I will ensure that his comments are drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who will doubtless take full account of them. As he told the hon. Gentleman on 30 October, it is helpful to obtain the comments of those who have experience and knowledge of such matters.

Mr. Trimble: I shall try to be brief. I am afraid that I think the Minister made rather a meal of his response, especially in what he said at the beginning about the Committee. He knows that the Ulster Unionists were going to table amendments, and he knows that, in Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) clearly stated that he

was prolonging the proceedings only to enable amendments to be tabled. Rather than allowing that to happen, the Government unnecessarily prolonged the sitting until everyone was exhausted. That was unfortunate, but we now have an opportunity to consider the substance of these matters, and I think that we should take it.
5.45 pm
The Minister said one thing from which I draw sustenance: he advised hon. Members to read the relevant chapter of Lord Lloyd's report. I am confident that, if they do so, they, like me, will be convinced that evidence secured through wire tapping should be made admissible. Lord Lloyd recommended that it should be so only in cases involving national security, and that raises difficulties, to which the Home Secretary referred; but my new clause is much narrower. It deals purely with Northern Ireland terrorism, and does not give rise to the same evidential problems.
I echo what was said by the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney). The Government now have an opportunity to consider the matter seriously, and I ask them to take it. I realise that they have not had long to consider it so far—if it had been raised in Committee, they would have had more time—but they will now be able to consider and consult, because the Bill will go to another place, where amendments can be tabled.
The Minister can act in regard to wire-tap evidence relating to terrorist offences connected with Northern Ireland before doing so in regard to offences relating to other parts of the United Kingdom. That would give the security forces in Northern Ireland a valuable additional weapon, as well as sending a signal that the Government will take matters seriously if there is a resumption of violence. It is important for that message to be sent now, because the Government have said nothing so far about what they might do in the likely event of a resumption of violence. The fact that their current approach is all carrot and no stick sends the wrong signals to the community in general, and, indeed, to those who are involved in terrorism. I ask the Minister to reflect on that.
I do not intend to force the matter to a Division, because I am not sure that votes are terribly important in the House now, but it was necessary for the issue to be raised, and it is important for the Minister to consider it. I hope that that will happen.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 3

CODES OF PRACTICE: COMMENCEMENT ORDERS

`—(1) Section 60 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 (orders and regulations) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2), after "30" there shall be inserted ", 54".
(3) In subsection (5), the words "or 54" shall cease to have effect'.—[Mr. Trimble.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Trimble: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 5, in clause 5, page 2, line 38, at end insert—
(2A) Subject to subsection (2B) a recording or a copy of a recording made under subsection (1)(b) shall not be made available to any person.
(2B) A judge conducting the trial of a scheduled offence may require the production to him alone of copies of all or any of the interviews made under this section with the accused in connection with the subject matter of the trial.'.
No. 7, in schedule 1, page 4, line 26, leave out & ", 53A" & and insert & "or 53A' ".
No. 8, in schedule 2, page 4, line 37, at end insert—
'In section 60(5), "or 54".'.

Mr. Trimble: Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 are consequential on new clause 3, but amendment No. 5 deals with a separate issue that is quite important.
I must give credit for new clause 3 to the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter). In Committee the other week, when we were discussing a code of practice under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, the hon. Gentleman referred to the provisions in that Act enabling codes of practice to be properly consulted on and debated in the House. The Minister—this Minister—approved of the hon. Gentleman's comments; as a result, they are the joint progenitors of the new clause. As the Minister spoke approvingly of the proposal in Committee, I am sure that he will follow through the logic of that approach now.
Amendment No. 5 is a different matter. I will explain the thinking behind it. Clause 5 makes provision for the audio recording of interviews conducted by the police with terrorist suspects. It is a matter about which we have very grave reservations. Indeed, in previous debates we have advised against such audio recording.
I know that audio recording is normal practice with regard to other offences. I am also aware that some judges in Northern Ireland have expressed the view that there should be audio recording. From their perspective, such recording diminishes fights when people who have signed statements challenge them on the ground that they were obtained improperly. The trial within a trial on the issue is sometimes difficult for judges to resolve. While audio recordings of interviews might solve that problem, they give rise to other problems and dangers, which in the past have convinced my hon. Friends and me that they should not occur.
During interviews with terrorist suspects, much intelligence is gathered by the police. A number of things are said on the basis that they are not recorded in the note of the interview. That is a well-known practice, and it is not necessary for me to cite evidence of it; it is accepted by everyone who is familiar with the system. Many such statements are made, and they would of course be recorded if an audio recording were taken. Such a recording would become available to a wide range of people. I do not need to remind hon. Members that when a terrorist suspect is arrested and questioned, the very first thing that his criminal associates do is try to find out details of what happened and what was said during the interrogation. An audio recording would facilitate that.
There is no point in saying that the recording would not become available. If, in the normal course of events, a recording should be disclosed or come up in discovery,

it will become available to the terrorists. They will then be able to check what their members or people associated with them have said in interviews. That is a very dangerous step to take and will have a serious effect by limiting the amount of intelligence that becomes available to the security forces.
I realise that the Government are determined to proceed with audio recording. Amendment No. 5 therefore tries to limit the damage. It provides that a copy of the recording can be furnished by the police to only one person—the judge conducting the trial—and that it would not be available to anyone else outside the police. That must go into legislation; it cannot be included in a code of practice because codes of practice cannot prevent the recording being discoverable. The amendment would limit the collateral damage which clause 5 will do to the activities of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: The hon. Gentleman has raised a point which I had not considered. If the amendment is not accepted, the clause could be a gift to terrorists. All hon. Members are very well aware that Sinn Fein and the IRA are very good at manipulating any loophole—however small—in the law. The amendment should be commended by us all.

Mr. Trimble: I thank the hon. Gentleman. His phrase is quite right; the provisions in clause 5 are a gift to terrorists. The amendment would limit the damage. I acknowledge the arguments in favour of audio recording. We felt on balance in previous years, however, that even though there was an advantage to audio recording the disadvantage that I have mentioned outweighed the advantage. The amendment would prevent the disadvantages that would flow from audio recording.

Mr. Öpik: Are we to understand that the hon. Gentleman is trying to ensure that audio recordings do not become an additional weapon in the terrorists' armoury and that audio—and, more important, video—recording is used to protect the interests of prisoners as well as accuracy?

Mr. Trimble: Yes, indeed. Obviously, recordings can also protect the police.
What provisions do the Government intend to make with regard to the detailed operation of audio recording? I look forward to what the Minister has to say.

Mr. Ingram: The hon. Member for Upper Bann made some strong and salient points about the new clause and amendment No. 5. I thank him for paying tribute to those who helped frame new clause 3. Given the debate in Committee, it is important that we get the matter right. The earlier proposal did not quite achieve the objective to which I was prepared to subscribe. The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) can speak for himself on new clause 3, but since he has not tabled any other amendment I assume that he supports it.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann did not go into much detail, so it is worth setting it out for the record. New clause 3 and the consequential amendments Nos. 7 and 8 would have the effect that any order made by the Secretary of State bringing into operation or amending a


code of practice made under the Act would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Currently, an order made bringing into operation or amending a code of practice under the Act is subject to the negative resolution procedure in the same way as orders pertaining to equivalent codes under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
Codes of practice are required in connection with the detention, treatment, questioning and identification of persons detained under the PTA, and such codes are already in operation. Codes of practice are also required in connection with silent video recording and audio recording and may be made in connection with the powers of part II of the Act. We hope to be in a position to bring the silent video recording code of practice into operation in January 1998. It would be wrong to debate the details of that at this stage. If the new clause gains the support of the House, we shall clearly have an opportunity to discuss in detail the Government's proposals. The audio recording code has yet to be drawn up. Under the provisions of the amendments, its introduction after the Bill receives Royal Assent would be dealt with by the affirmative resolution procedure, which would allow debate and consideration.
Orders pertaining to the equivalent PACE codes are subject to negative resolution and the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act currently mirrors the PACE provisions in this respect. However, codes of practice governing the application of counter-terrorism provisions are by their nature somewhat different. That is why I responded as I did in Committee and why I support new clause 3. Such codes of practice merit special scrutiny. All of us will gain from such an approach. I am happy to accept the proposals of the hon. Member for Upper Bann concerning new clause 3.
Amendment No. 5 raises a range of important issues. In effect, the hon. Member is seeking to place a restriction on disclosure of audio tapes. His amendment would have the effect that audio recordings would be made available only to the judge conducting the trial. The Government fully understand the motive behind that. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to remove any inhibitions that might be placed on the interviewee, and any fears that he may have in the knowledge that audio tapes of his interviews may become public.
Before I respond to amendment No. 5 in detail, I want to reassure the hon. Member for Upper Bann and the House that the audio recording system is being introduced with the full co-operation and support of the Chief Constable of the RUC, who has taken the view that it will not impair the ability of his officers to pursue terrorist crime. The details of the code of practice that will govern the system will be drawn up, in the usual way, in full consultation with the RUC.
The general matter of electronic recording in the police holding centres has been a subject of much discussion: it is no secret that the question of disclosure of tapes—whether audio or video—has been a major area of contention. Even those favouring the introduction of electronic recording have given thought to whether it would be possible to devise a scheme that would guard against tapes being disclosed, for precisely the reason the hon. Member has outlined.
6 pm
Sir Louis Blom-Cooper, the Independent Commissioner for the Holding Centres, in his annual report published in 1994, put forward proposals for a scheme involving the Lord Chief Justice to direct a judge, not being the trial judge, to view any tape that a detainee or his legal representative had sought disclosure of during the course of the trial. The Crown would then subsequently be invited to argue against any decision on the part of the judge to allow disclosure and in the end could withdraw its reliance on the disputed evidence. In other words, only if the Crown were still to pursue its prosecution, based wholly or in part on the contested evidence, would disclosure be ordered by the High Court judge.
Whatever the viability of the scheme, however, it would still face two major difficulties. The first is that, given that the possibility of disclosure would remain, the inhibitions on the person being interviewed—to the extent that that is still a problem—would also remain. Secondly, and more importantly, such tapes would represent best evidence in any criminal proceedings, and to devise schemes that circumvented the principle of disclosure of best evidence would surely go to the heart of the fairness and adequacy of those proceedings.
Similarly, the alternative of confining access to the tapes to the trial judge only was considered carefully in the past. I have looked at the idea again in the light of amendment No. 5 tabled by the hon. Member for Upper Bann. I have to say that it would be highly prejudicial to the process of justice if any judge were to hear recordings of interviews that were not in the end made available to the defence—all the more so if the judge noted any impropriety on the part of the police interviewing officers. It would place the judge in an impossible position, because his function is to administer justice in a way that is impartial to both parties in a case. We have an especially good record in Northern Ireland in achieving that objective against a difficult background.
The Government have taken the decision to introduce audio recording for several reasons. We believe that it will provide additional protection both for the detainee and for the interviewing officers, it will reduce the scope for the lengthy hearings within trials that have been such a feature of terrorist-related trials in recent years, thus speeding up the process of justice to everyone's benefit, and it will not undermine the ability of the police to investigate serious terrorist crime, which is the Chief Constable's considered view.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Can the Minister explain why the Chief Constable is now said to be in favour of audio recordings being admitted as evidence—and why he has apparently suggested that that will not prejudice the investigations or hamper the collection of evidence—when that did not appear to be the case on previous occasions when the subject was considered? What has brought about that tremendous metamorphosis in police thinking? [Interruption.]

Mr. Ingram: The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) says that it was political pressure.

Mr. Malcolm Moss: Political direction.

Mr. Ingram: I am sorry—I misheard the hon. Gentleman. If the accusation is being made—from


a sedentary position or by implied intervention—that political direction has been given to the Chief Constable, I assure the House that that is not the case. If the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) wishes to know why the Chief Constable has changed his mind, the hon. and learned Gentleman should talk to him. That is what the Government have done as we discussed the changes. I am reporting the view of the Chief Constable to the House. I can assess why he changed his mind only on the basis of the discussions that we had with him.

Mr. Moss: So he has changed his mind.

Mr. Ingram: That is not in dispute. The reasons behind his change of mind are based on the facts and circumstances that he has to take into account, but how the Chief Constable reached his decision is a matter for him. The Government believe that there is merit in proceeding as we intend and the Government have to be held to account for that, not the Chief Constable. I suggest that the hon. and learned Member for North Down and others who are concerned should discuss the matter with the Chief Constable. He is amenable to talking to hon. Members and to giving full consideration to any points of view that they express.
Written records of interviews are already kept, and silent video recording will be introduced shortly—as the hon. Member for Upper Bann said. Audio recording is a natural and sensible progression. My genuine belief is that the best way to protect the process of bringing terrorist criminals to justice is to protect the police from unfounded and malicious allegations, and to enable the courts to satisfy themselves conclusively that admissions to police are properly obtained.
While I understand the purpose of the hon. Member for Upper Bann in tabling amendment No. 5, I do not believe that a system that sought to prevent audio tapes from being disclosed would be either workable or appropriate. That is why I cannot accept the amendment. We have not rejected it out of hand. Due thought was given to the amendment on the basis of the various examinations of the subject by others. However, on balance, we do not believe that the amendment would advance the cause of natural justice and I ask the hon. Gentleman to seek leave to withdraw it.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: I wish to make three brief points. The first relates to the codes of practice. I seek an assurance from the Minister that the codes of practice that the Secretary of State is required to produce, however they are decided, will be implemented speedily. Silent video recording has been agreed and adjudicated on, but after some considerable time it has still not been implemented.
I heard the Minister's explanation for the delay and in some ways I accept it, but I would be more confident in accepting it if I could do so in conjunction with an assurance that the codes of practice for audio recording will not be delayed. I hope that the Minister will be able to give a target date for the implementation of audio recording, based on the codes of practice.
Secondly, I have listened with great interest to the points that have been made tonight, but one point seems to be missing. The person being questioned in police custody is in abnormal circumstances. He has been

arrested abnormally under emergency legislation; he is being held abnormally, by people who have the right to refuse him access to a solicitor; he may be held for an abnormal length of time, in contravention of the European convention on human rights; and he is held in abnormal physical conditions, in holding centres that have been condemned as unfit for that use by all who have reported on them to Parliament. Abnormality surrounds the entire process from the time person is arrested until the time the person appears in court. The abnormality continues because there is then no jury. The abnormality stretches right through the entire process. For that reason, we must be ultra-careful.

Mr. Robert McCartney: I agree that there are a number of abnormalities, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that the most fundamental abnormality is the existence of terrorist organisations that, over a period, have murdered more than 3,000 human beings, destroyed enormous amounts of property and mutilated the persons of literally thousands of people? That is the fundamental assault on society and everything it stands for which has given rise to the abnormalities of which the hon. Gentleman so eloquently speaks.

Mr. Mallon: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for making that point, and I do not dispute with him the obscene abnormality of violence and what it has done to everyone living in the north of Ireland. That is incontestable. What is open to question, however, is the capacity of any abnormal system to end that state of affairs.
In some ways, the question posed by the hon. and learned Gentleman confirms that. The more abnormal the process of law has become, the more abnormalities are sought. We must think about that even when there is peace—I know that that will crop up later in the debate. Please do not despise that peace. For someone who lives where I live, it is very precious. Do not let a wish list damage the prospect of its continuing. Do not let the need or the desire to predict accurately cloud judgment on the issue.
It is within that context, on the three key issues, that I greatly welcome the changes made. However, I have been and am still critical of the fact that at a time when we are, I hope, moving into lasting peace, the legislation is being extended beyond the year 2000.
We as a society, whether in Northern Ireland or anywhere else, must never forget the need to protect the rights of individuals. It is true that some of those individuals do not respect other people's rights, but that is no reason why a Government, a Parliament or a system should take up the abnormalities and make a virtue of them.
I look forward to hearing the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) argue his case from a legal point of view, but as a layman I simply pose one question about the amendment. Can it be just or equitable that the evidence on tape is not available to everyone involved in the process of a person's trial? Can that be right? Can that be legally acceptable?
We should not make the assumption that if the judge sees the evidence he, in his overpowering wisdom, will make the right decision. Surely a lay person who respects the law and wishes to protect it should demand that if there is evidence available, it should be available as of right to everyone. It should not be withheld.
Over the years, one of the greatest criticisms of the application of both the emergency provisions Act and the prevention of terrorism Act has been that legislation designed to protect society was used to trawl for evidence. Ministers admitted as much in the House. When the provisions were first introduced, Sir Leon Brittan confirmed on the Floor of the House that one of the purposes was to trawl for information. That fact was also confirmed by a junior Minister in a famous Standing Committee debate.
Is there not an element in the debate on the new clause which suggests that what is being protected is not the chance of a valid conviction, or even the right of the individual, but the capacity of those who are doing the questioning to trawl for information rather than pursuing whatever evidence there may be against the person being questioned?
That goes to the heart of the problems as many of us in the north of Ireland see them. In response to a comment made earlier, I must say that I believe that there is no general view in the north of Ireland, and that we must accept that fact. However, there is one subject on which there is an absolutely general view—the end to the terrible violence that the hon. and learned Member for North Down talked about. And there is the absolute desire for peace.
There is also a strong view that, whatever tactics may be used by the terrorists and the others who have inflicted the obscenity of terrorism on the rest of us for so long, the legal process must retain its integrity and should never even step towards using the same type of tactics as the terrorists. I am afraid that the implication that the provisions allow trawling for information goes down a road that we should not travel. It does not protect what we should protect, and over 25 years it has not achieved the results that some assume.

Mr. Robert McCartney: In connection with the proposed amendment, may I first point out that although I sought from the Minister some indication of the reasons for the Chief Constable's change of heart about audio evidence, that was not necessarily done for the purpose of supporting the amendment.
There are difficulties about the amendment. The most basic, which has already been mentioned by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), is that it is a fundamental principle of our judicial system that evidence that is to be tendered against an accused must be made available to him. If it is made available to the judge alone in certain circumstances, that is a breach of a fundamental principle.
The Minister would be correct to have reservations about that, and perhaps it is a good basis for not accepting the amendment. My objections, and the reason for my question to the Minister, involved whether audio evidence should be accepted at all. I did not mean that it should be accepted and an attempt made to tailor it to our present difficulties by overriding what the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh rightly pointed out is a fundamental and necessary principle of the administration of justice in the United Kingdom.
May I in turn refer to other matters that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned? I see nothing objectionable if those charged with bringing criminals to justice seek to

obtain information in any circumstances, provided that those circumstances are lawful and are not in breach of any of the principles according to which evidence should properly be obtained.
There should not be any objection in principle to extraordinary or emergency measures being used to deal with extraordinary and emergency cases. The fundamental question is how far a democracy is entitled to take measures of an emergency nature to protect democracy itself.
That is no new principle. When the state itself was threatened, both Abraham Lincoln and F. D. Roosevelt, who in any democratic society would be respected as great servants of democracy, introduced emergency measures to which in normal circumstances they would have objected. During the war between the states, Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, opened US mail without authority and interned people without trial. Similarly, we forget that, in more recent times, the US Government interned 100,000 Japanese citizens—the Nissei—in 10 different camps when the United States was threatened by Japan.
No one would pretend for a moment that they like these actions or that they should be given any credence—except in particular circumstances where even greater damage would be done to society itself were these emergency measures not in place. During the second world war, people who were thought to be a danger to the security of the state were placed in positions where that danger could be averted.
All this may lead the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh to suggest that these measures are not necessary, but let us look at what happened today. In 1984, a group attempted to assassinate the entire Cabinet of the United Kingdom. In 1991, the same people attempted to direct rockets to destroy No. 10 Downing street and those within it. In 1997, they are coming through the front door of No. 10 Downing street, without having surrendered a single weapon or handed over a single ounce of Semtex. It is a myth that violence does not work—violence works if Governments do not have a commitment to take the necessary emergency measures to protect the person and property of its citizens.

Mr. Norman A. Godman: Can I return the hon. and learned Gentleman to the question of persons being interviewed by police officers? Does he agree that there should be no unseemly delay in the access to legal advice for those persons?

Mr. McCartney: In principle and in appropriate circumstances, everyone should have the quickest access to legal advice. Again, however, we must balance whether or not prompt and vigorous—although not unlawful or not objectionable—interrogation methods are necessary to obtain information that might prevent horrendous crimes from occurring.
What is not generally appreciated—except by those involved—is that, very often, those who are being interrogated in holding centres are already known to have committed the crimes for which they are being interrogated. Very often in Northern Ireland, witnesses come forward and specifically identify people and give the most positive and clear evidence against them. However, they say to the investigating police that because they live in the area and because they, their children or


their relatives may be murdered or mutilated, they will not give evidence. However, they will identify people on the confidential phone or in an interview. The people concerned are then picked up and interrogated. Within the necessary strictures that must be placed on the police, that interrogation or trawling for evidence—l it what you will—erfectly justified.

Mr. Mallon: The hon. and learned Gentleman has long experience of practising in the courts in the north of Ireland. I have long experience of the other side of the coin in relation to this legislation. Is it ever right under law to arrest people under emergency legislation— ally at six o'clock in the morning— e them to a holding centre, question them and keep them there, when those who are arresting and questioning them know that there is no suspicion attached to them? Are not the persons arrested losing their freedom and human rights in the search for information, perhaps about someone who the police know is guilty, or about an incident? The figures for the EPA and the PTA down the years clearly show that that has been the case. Surely that is wrong, and we should not allow it to happen again. The amendment would do just that.

Mr. McCartney: Certainly a strong case can be made that only in exceptional circumstances should persons who are not themselves suspected of committing a crime be arrested and subjected to interrogation for the purpose of implicating others. However, there may be circumstances known to the police—would have to be left to their discretion—re such measures may be justified if they would save lives, prevent a horrendous crime or, in other unspecified ways, protect the community. It is very easy to make specific judgments and to ask for a generalised approval of a principle which, in practice, may cost people their lives and cause massive destruction.

Mr. Trimble: I shall try to respond to the debate briefly. Amendment No. 5 has been touched on, and we can exaggerate the abnormality of the situation with which we are dealing. In tabling the amendment, I recognised, as has the Minister, that we are attempting to balance advantages and disadvantages with regard to a course of action. There are some advantages in the course that the Government are taking, but there are also disadvantages. The amendment tries to steer between them to achieve the best balance.
The Minister acknowledged that the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland has changed his mind on the matter. Until quite recently, it was not just the view of the Chief Constable, but the settled view of the police force that it was inadvisable to have audio tapes of interviews with terrorist suspects. Although the Chief Constable may have changed his mind, I think that I am right in saying that other senior members of the police force prefer his former opinion to his present one.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) referred to the European convention on human rights. There would be only a mere technical breach of the convention if the amendment were accepted; a technical breach which could have been solved a long time ago. I am glad to see that the Home Secretary has announced that he is to try to solve that problem, and the solution is fairly obvious.
I suggest to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh that the situation about which he is concerned will not be aided in any way by the amendment. The amendment is not directed at a person who is brought in for what he called trawling but is not charged with an offence. The amendment would be relevant only to those who are charged with an offence and to the subsequent trial of that offence.
The hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) made the correct point—h which I fully agree—t evidence to be used against someone should be available to them. However, the evidence is the statement that that person has made. The audio recording is relevant to the circumstances in which the statement is made, and may be relevant to the admissibility of the statement. It may not be ideal for the audio tape to be available only to the judge, but this is not unusual.
Where material has been withheld under public interest immunity certificates, for example, the judge alone looks at it to see whether the certificate should have the effect of taking the material out or whether it should be available. That can be relevant to criminal cases—example, material that the judge alone considers can be crucial to the outcome of the trial, as in the Matrix Churchill case.
6.30 pm
The abnormality of the case can be exaggerated. To return to my first point, it is a balancing exercise and the Government are making a mistake in where they are putting the balance. That mistake will become clear in subsequent days. It is a pity that that is happening and I am sorry that the Government are taking that line. None the less, I do not intend to press amendment No. 5 to a vote and I shall seek the leave of the House to withdraw it.
I am delighted at the Government's acceptance of the new clause and amendments Nos. 7 and 8. I am glad that they are employing such an open approach to this legislation. In this sort of situation, it helps if the Government are prepared to look seriously at the merits of clauses. As the Minister said, new clause 3 would ensure a debate within Parliament on the codes of practice, so that they are under parliamentary control, or are at least given a degree of parliamentary scrutiny. That is right. The fact that we are dealing with emergency legislation, increases the argument for parliamentary scrutiny. If we are doing something outside of the normal course of events, there is all the more reason for the House, which is authorising the departure from the norm, to examine and scrutinise. Hon. Members on the Ulster Unionist Benches have made that point year in and year out.
Parliamentary scrutiny of emergency legislation is inadequate and this is a small step to strengthen it. I appreciate the fact that the Minister has accepted those amendments. Therefore, Mr. Deputy Speaker I beg leave to withdraw amendment No. 5.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have not yet got to amendment No. 5. We are only debating it with new clause 3 at this stage, so the hon. Gentleman does not need to withdraw it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 1

DURATION OF THE NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) ACT 1996

Mr. Trimble: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, leave out lines 7 and 8.
I shall try to be as rapid as possible. I have already pointed out that legislation of this nature ought to have parliamentary scrutiny. Amendment No. 1 would restore the debate that would otherwise have taken place in 1998 on the continuation of the 1996 Act. The Bill will knock out the annual review of the legislation in 1998, which is a mistake. As long as this legislation remains on the statute book, it ought to be debated in the House at least once a year, as has been the practice. As I said, the legislation has not had much by way of parliamentary scrutiny. I am surprised that new Labor—or indeed, old Labor—is attempting to remove the House's annual debate on the emergency provisions. It is surprising that virtually the first thing that the Labour party did on coming to power was to diminish the parliamentary scrutiny of emergency legislation. That is an astonishing move and I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment.

Mr. Ingram: Hopefully, we can debate this quickly. As I understand it from listening to the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the amendment would ensure that, to remain in force, the temporary provisions of the 1996 Act will be required to be continued by order approved by resolution of each House of Parliament before 15 June next year. I was not clear whether that was the hon. Gentleman's intention.

Mr. Trimble: indicated assent.

Mr. Ingram: The fact that the hon. Gentleman is assenting indicates an understanding of the effect of the amendment. The Government included the subsection that the hon. Gentleman seeks to remove so that if the Bill is enacted before June 1998, we can dispense with the need for the annual renewal debates, so he is right in his assessment of what we are seeking to do. However, renewal debates will take place in 1999 and 2000, if necessary, to continue the temporary provisions in force until their expiry on 24 August 2000.
As the hon. Member said, the renewal debates are an important safeguard, but since Parliament will have fully debated all the provisions of the Act during the passage of this Bill, parliamentary time could and should be saved by dispensing with the 1998 annual renewal debates if the Bill is enacted in good time. Because we are debating this Bill within the time scale in which the 1998 provisions would have been debated, there is no need for a subsequent debate. The legislation will also be considered in another place and may be referred back to us.
Under those circumstances, I cannot accept the amendment. We have had a full debate—12 hours in Committee and considerable time on the Floor of the House on Second Reading and this evening—and there may be further debate on the matter. Simply going through the whole exercise again would not be the best

use of parliamentary time. While the debate is important, we have had that debate during the passage of this Bill, so I cannot accept the amendment.

Mr. Trimble: Having listened to the Minister, my astonishment at the Government's position is, if anything, greater than it was before. This is 1997. After tonight, this House will not debate the issue again until June 1999. We are to be deprived of the debate that would have taken place in June 1998, which is nearly six months away.

Mr. Ingram: The debates do not necessarily take place in June. Usually it is earlier, in May, and they can take place earlier than that. Under the procedures of the House, the provisions have to be renewed by that date. We are giving the issue full consideration. What more would be gained by having another debate in a month or so? Anyway, we do not know when the Bill will be referred back to us from another place.

Mr. Trimble: That answer is wholly inadequate. The renewal debates take place against the background of a report by someone who looks into the operation of the legislation during the year. During the passage of this Bill, we have not considered the detailed operation of the legislation against the background of such an expert report. It is a different sort of debate.
Whether the debate is in May or June does not detract from the fact that the Government are ensuring that there will be no debate in 1998 and that it will be another 18 months before the operation of the legislation is given any parliamentary scrutiny. In these debates on the Bill, hon. Members can by inference make points about the operation of the legislation, but the debates are not focused on its operation as renewal debates are. Even in recent years, parliamentary scrutiny of the emergency legislation has been woefully inadequate. In the next 18 months, it will be non-existent.
I am amazed that that is the position that the Labour party has adopted, but it has done so and time is getting on. I have made my point and I will not press it to delay the House unnecessarily. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2

SCHEDULED OFFENCES

Mr. Trimble: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 2, leave out lines 1 and 2.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 3, in page 2, leave out line 3.
No. 4, in page 2, leave out line 6.

Mr. Trimble: The amendments concern the certifying out of scheduled offences. The effect of the legislation is to enable certain offences to be certified out. The point of the amendments is to allow us to ask the Minister to give us the detailed reasons why it is now proposed to certify out offences—making or possessing a petrol bomb; throwing or using a petrol bomb; possessing a firearm


with intent to endanger life; use or attempted use of firearms; causing explosions—that are clearly terrorist offences.
Those offences are not outside the ambit of paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland. Can the Minister give any coherent reason why those terrorist offences should not be handled in the same way as other terrorist cases?

Mr. Ingram: The amendments refer to offences involving intimidation, petrol bombs, firearms and explosives, and the hon. Gentleman objects to such offences being made capable of being certified out of the schedule of terrorist offences. The amendments would not only preserve the status quo in relation to certain offences that the Government seek to make certifiable out, but would remove certifiable-out status from all scheduled offences under the headings of the Protection of the Person and Property Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 and the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981. The amendments do not make it clear whether that was the hon. Gentleman's intention, and he did not give us a full explanation, but that is the thrust of the amendments.
Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are not suggesting that such offences should invariably be treated in the ordinary way. On the contrary, where the Attorney-General judges it appropriate, they will be tried before Diplock courts. Equally, however, the Government are anxious that, in cases where there is no terrorist involvement or connection with the emergency, the flexibility should exist to enable such cases to be certified out.

Mr. Trimble: Is the Minister seriously suggesting that there are cases involving explosions and firearms in which there is no terrorist involvement?

Mr. Ingram: I was coming to that. If the hon. Gentleman holds on for a bit, I shall set out my reasoning on the matter.
The hon. Gentleman seeks to preserve the present arrangements, whereby certain offences are automatically tried by Diplock courts. Let me illustrate by quoting from the appropriate statutes. Section 2 of the Protection of the Person and Property Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 says:
any person who makes, or has in his possession, any apparatus, instrument, article or thing which
(a) contains any inflammable liquid or substance; or
(b) is constructed or adapted for use in conjunction with any such liquid or substance so as to cause injury or loss of life to any person or damage to any property; under such circumstances as to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that he is not making it or does not have it in his possession for a lawful object shall, unless he can show that he made it or had it in his possession for a lawful object, be guilty of an offence under this section.
Let me describe briefly some of the relevant offences under the other headings. Paragraph 17 of the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 says:
a person who has in his possession any firearm or ammunition with intent by means thereof to endanger life or cause serious injury to property or to enable any other person by means thereof to endanger life or cause serious injury to property, shall be guilty of an offence whether any injury to person or property has been caused or not.

Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act 1883 says:
any person who unlawfully and maliciously causes by any explosive substance an explosion of a nature likely to endanger life or to cause serious injury to property shall, whether any injury to person or property has been actually caused or not, be guilty of felony".
Those are the three areas that we are examining in relation to the amendments. It is important to put the relevant parts of the legislation on the record.
6.45 pm
The hon. Gentleman seeks to ensure that such offences must invariably be tried by Diplock courts, as he calls them terrorist offences. That is not all: he also seeks, for example—I shall not list every offence—to consign automatically to Diplock courts any offence of intimidation and any offence of manufacturing, dealing in, or repairing a firearm or ammunition without being registered.
Let us assume that there was an unprovoked attack on a member of the public by criminal elements not connected with terrorism; for example, someone spraying an individual with lighter fuel in order to steal his possessions. That would fall within the ambit of the relevant section.
As another example, suppose that there was a domestic crime involving possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life; or suppose that ordinary criminal elements used explosives to gain entry to a safe; or that in a dispute between neighbours one party felt threatened and intimidated into leaving the premises.
Those examples would fall within the ambit of the sections that I read out. The hon. Gentleman would classify those acts as terrorist acts, and would deny those who carry them out the right to trial by jury. I hope that he has accepted the thrust of my argument: not every crime that falls within the ambit of those sections could by any classification be determined to be a terrorist act.
The hon. Gentleman sought an explanation. On the basis of the explanation that I have given, there is no way in which I could accept the amendment, and I ask him to withdraw it.

Mr. Öpik: It seems to us that the Government's intention is to introduce, as we would all wish, an element of normalisation in the legal system in Northern Ireland. Certifying out is an attempt to make that process a bit more expeditious.
My party finds no great danger in certifying out because, after all, if we understand it correctly, cases will still be evaluated on an individual, case-by-case basis. The cases that should not be exposed to the many dangers of corruption that a normal trial might engender will still be tried under the Diplock court system.
We should encourage confidence in the decision makers, and in the idea that certifying out will not harm the process, among those who are keen for the normalisation process to be accelerated. We object to the amendment and support the Government in their attempt to normalise this aspect of the legal system in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Robert McCartney: While I can fully appreciate your anxiety to normalise as far as possible the trial of various criminal offences in Northern Ireland, you will be aware that there is at least a feeling among many people in Northern Ireland that the proposals are part of a process of confidence building.
Has any research been conducted or statistics produced on the number of occasions when someone who could have been charged as a petrol bomber was in fact engaged in ordinary criminal activity with his butane lighter fuel? Perhaps you could also tell us—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman keeps using the words, "you" and "your". The Chair is not responsible for the matter.

Mr. McCartney: I am sorry, I accept that entirely.
Some statistics or evidence about the Government's proposals would help. Clearly, the Government believe that some requirement of justice means that such potentially ordinary criminal cases should be dealt with in a non-Diplock way by juries. Has any research been done? Do statistics show that a significant body of cases of the sort that the Minister described is being dealt with under the Diplock process, when under the proposals they would be dealt with by trial by jury? Or are the Government saying in a blanket way that the bare possibility of such crimes being effected means that it is necessary to make new arrangements?

Mr. Mallon: It is with some trepidation that I speak on the matter. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney), and the Minister, but I am still slightly confused. I am not quite sure whether that reflects on the powers of persuasion of those three gentlemen or on my powers of understanding.
The hon. and learned Member for North Down asked for statistics. I understand that the vast majority of work in the Attorney-General's office, some 85 per cent., involves certifying out. I commend the Minister for moving gradually towards having all cases dealt with through the normal process of law. I do not think that the proposals go far enough. Other instances could have been included. I do not want to confuse myself or the issue any further by attempting to mention them, but I believe that this is an opportunity for at least some movement. I commend the Minister for having taken it.

Mr. Trimble: These were probing amendments to try to elicit an explanation. The Minister gave us a theoretical explanation, not a practical one. I endorse the points of the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney). I wanted to know from the Minister whether, in the circumstances in Northern Ireland, there were any instances of such offences that could genuinely be described as non-terrorist. My limited knowledge suggests that all such cases are paramilitary or paramilitary related. That is the practical reality as I understand it in Northern Ireland. Of course, one can construct theoretical situations such as the example that the Minister gave about lighter fuel. I wanted a practical explanation, and I am sorry that I did not get one.
This was a probing amendment to find whether there was a coherent reason behind the proposals; it is clear that there is not. None the less, having found that out, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3

DETENTION ORDERS

Mr. MacKay: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 2, leave out lines 9 and 10.
Those who watch our proceedings from outside will find it bizarre, to say the least, that we are debating rigorous anti-terrorist legislation on the very day that the leaders of Sinn Fein-IRA are invited into 10 Downing street with the Prime Minister. It will be difficult to explain to our constituents why that is happening.
The amendment would delete the clauses that refer to internment. We believe that it is right and proper that internment should stay on the statute book. Let me explain precisely why. We are not necessarily in favour of internment. The Government Whip has suggested from a sedentary position that it was not necessarily successful last time. He will be pleased to know that I largely concur.

Mr. Ingram: To avoid unnecessary debate, does the hon. Gentleman consider that the Government should not talk at all to Sinn Fein? Should anyone talk to Sinn Fein to move the peace process forward?

Mr. MacKay: I suspect that that intervention was not in order, but if you will allow me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall respond briefly. I have said on the record on several occasions that I am entirely in favour of the political talks under way at Stormont. It is right and proper that after a ceasefire has been in place for a certain time, Sinn Fein-IRA should be in those talks. We have also said that it is decidedly premature for a British Prime Minister to invite Sinn Fein-IRA leaders to Downing street. I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to confirm that yet again.
Let me explain why we tabled the amendment. We readily acknowledge that internment does not always work and that it was not successful in the early 1970s. However, it is quite conceivable that if the political talks at Stormont succeed, and we all dearly hope that they do, there will be splinter groups in both communities that do not accept their results and will resort to violence. Anyone with even a passing interest in the history of Northern Ireland and Ireland will recognise that that almost inevitably happens. I suggest that the moment when, just possibly, the Government might need to introduce internment is after a political settlement has been reached and the splinter groups resort to violence.
It is decidedly premature to take internment off the statute brook. I wonder why the Minister is bothering to do it in the Bill, not least when the Government of the Republic of Ireland are retaining internment on the statute book in Ireland, for understandable reasons. We urge the Minister to reconsider the decision. We are not asking him to introduce internment at any particular point.

Mr. Godman: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Government of the Irish Republic. The other day in the Dail, the Minister for Justice, when questioned by two deputies—I think one was John Gormley—said, as a direct response to this Bill, that his Department would review the Irish legislation on internment.

Mr. MacKay: The hon. Gentleman sits on the Government Benches, so he is well aware that a review
is totally different from action. The Government have initiated 40-odd reviews, but if they are telling me that they will all lead to action, they are very much mistaken.

Mr. Ingram: May I point out to the hon. Gentleman that the Labour party in opposition carried out the review, and we are now implementing it in government?

Mr. MacKay: I have never said to the Minister that this matter is one of the numerous examples of the Labour party saying one thing in opposition to the electorate and another thing when it came to power. I willingly accept that the Minister does not have the same problem of misleading the British public as his colleagues in the Department of Social Security had to face in the House last night. If the hon. Gentleman wishes me to commend him, which was obviously why he made that intervention, I am happy to commend him on his consistency, even though I gently suggest to him that he is mistaken.

7 pm

Mr. Dominic Grieve: Does my hon. Friend agree that pragmatism in the approach to the problem is the key? Does he agree that what causes anxiety to Conservative Members is the fact that whereas the Government have embarked on a pragmatic policy, even to the point of being willing to speak to Sinn Fein today—even if we have anxieties about that, we can still respect that decision— they are not adopting a pragmatic policy on internment? They seemed to make up their mind about it some time ago, and are not applying their mind to the current realities in Northern Ireland.
Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be much better to keep internment on the statute book as an available reserve power, because that would display the Government's willingness to negotiate and look for a peaceful settlement and, at the same time, their unwillingness to dispose of any part of the armoury that a lawful, democratic Government should have in resisting terrorism?

Mr. MacKay: I concur whole-heartedly with my hon. Friend.
We are not asking the Government to introduce internment at any particular time; we are simply saying that we think that it is in their interests to have the flexibility of retaining internment on the statute book in case they need it at some time in the future. We see no possible advantage in taking it off the statute book, nor any need for it, and we are surprised that the Government are doing so. Many will be suspicious of the Government's motives, and we ask them, even at this late stage, to think again.

Mr. Mallon: I should like to restate my position, as I did on Second Reading and in Committee.
I believe that the Minister and the Government have made the right decision in terms of the integrity of the law as it applies in the north of Ireland. It is the right decision in terms of the integrity of their own political position and it is the right decision in terms of the immediate future and the future beyond that.
We had a brief discussion about the renewal of this legislation and the fact that it may not be debated in 1998. I was torn when I heard that, because my instinct is to

take every opportunity to consider the legislation. But one thing I am sure of is that whatever happens in 1999, when we next debate the legislation, things will have got either an awful lot better or terribly worse. That is for sure.
There are those who believe that the capacity for things to improve is greater than is sometimes recognised. Reference has been made to a visit to 10 Downing street today, and the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) described it as bizarre. Everything to do with what will solve the problem in the north of Ireland will be bizarre. I live a fairly bizarre life, especially for three days of the week in a place called Castle Buildings, with Sinn Fein representatives on one side of me and representatives of the Ulster Democratic party and of the Progressive Unionist party on the other. That is bizarre. It is even more bizarre that that is happening when a man was murdered in Belfast at the weekend, yet not a word, not a question was asked about which organisation might have killed him. No question was raised in the House when the leaders of loyalist paramilitarism did a bizarre thing. Guess what it was? They went to 10 Downing street to meet the Prime Minister.
Is it not bizarre that in a fundamental debate as important as this, the most bizarre element of all has not been comprehensively dealt with? I believe, and we have nothing else to hold on to except our belief, that when we come to debate the legislation again, things will have changed radically. A new beauty will have been born, not the terrible beauty of Yeats, but a beauty based on pragmatism, reality and political progress. I cannot ever foresee circumstances on the island of Ireland when internment will be used again.
As I have said before, internment has been used in every decade since the 1920s—in the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Some of us are a product of those years, and our experiences on the receiving end go back long before the emergency provisions Act and the prevention of terrorism Act. I make the following prediction confidently, to whatever party is in power: never again will internment be used on the island of Ireland. If it were, it would be a fundamental acceptance almost of defeat, not of victory, and an act of ill faith in the capacity of the people on the island of Ireland to move away from violence and create a new future. It would hold to us one of the monuments of emergency legislation which has failed by the admission of every party in the House. The last thing that we want are monuments to failure rather than signposts to the hope and potential of the future.
The Government are right for the three reasons that I gave previously. I commend them on their action. I have made my criticisms that they have not gone far enough down that road of faith. I believe, however, that when we debate the legislation again in the House, the evidence will be there that the step that they have taken today is the right one.
It is in that sense of faith that I commend the Government for taking a step which is more difficult for a British Government or an Irish Government than probably any other step relating to their own legislation. I want to see the Irish Government respond—I make no distinction between bad pieces of legislation—by removing their power of internment immediately from the statute book. They know my view on that as clearly as I have tried to put it here.

Mr. Tom King: I was sorry to see the amendment, which has been signed by the Conservative Front-Bench team on Northern Ireland, because I recognise that it represents a possible dent in the bipartisan approach which is critical to addressing the problems.
When I first heard about the possibility that internment might be removed from the statute book—I believe that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland mentioned it at the Labour party conference, or at a fringe meeting there—I was surprised, because I had not heard about any such proposal. I understood its significance, as would anyone familiar with Northern Ireland.
I consulted my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), the shadow spokesman for Northern Ireland, on what consultation there had been and what notice he had had that this proposal was to be introduced. I discovered from him that there had been none, and I regretted that because it is obviously desirable, as we go forward with this difficult process, to have the closest consultation between the main parties in this country.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), along with his colleagues, has responsibility for carrying forward a process in which some of us have invested a significant part of our life as we have tried to make it succeed. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) knows, as do one or two other hon. Members, some of the pressures and hostility that I had to endure, from not just the loyalist, but the Unionist community, when I stood firmly in support of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
I saw the recent speech of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to the British-Irish parliamentary body, in which she described the long process that this has been. She took her starting point as the Anglo-Irish Agreement. It was difficult to hold the line at that time; there were enormous pressures. Some will remember the famous speech that the then right hon. Member for South Down, Mr. Enoch Powell, made and the abuse directed at the then Prime Minister, now Lady Thatcher, at the time of the signing of that agreement. I was the personal recipient of some of the more direct views of the people of Northern Ireland on that subject, not least in the city hall in Belfast.
I mention that only to show that this long journey towards what I profoundly hope will be peace is a journey in which each of us who picks up the baton on behalf of the Government of this country—to carry it forward in the interests of everyone in these islands—has a heavy responsibility to ensure that every effort is made to take as many people as possible with us.
I have concerns about certain things that happen in Northern Ireland. There is a long-standing convention, which I have always tried to respect. Everyone who has taken on the ultimate responsibility in difficult circumstances—we have just passed the 10th anniversary of the Armistice day outrage at Enniskillen, an all-too-vivid memory which I shall take with me throughout my life—recognises the pressures on the current Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the difficult problems faced by the Minister of State who has responsibility for security in the Province. Therefore, the Opposition do not seek to second guess, carp and criticise unnecessarily; it is easier not to do so if there is consultation between the parties, because comments can be made in private.
I am concerned about the spirit of consultation and the bipartisan approach, which has never been more important if the process is to go forward as there are some difficult issues ahead. As the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh has said, it is a time when people will have to take brave decisions. Those decisions will have to be made not just by Governments from behind the security of Downing street and Stormont Castle, but by politicians out in the streets who have much less protection than I and others have enjoyed. They will have to take brave decisions that will undoubtedly upset some people in their community. In recognising the need for those decisions, it will be important that we maintain the closest consultation and carefully consider their impact.
I talked about taking risks, and I recognise that a number of steps that the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have taken have pushed back the frontiers of what was previously considered acceptable. I do not necessarily agree with all their actions, but a number of them contain the necessary elements to achieve a change of attitude, provided that there can be seen to be a genuine willingness on the part of those to whom the concessions and opportunities are given to respond with a positive attitude. That will be the test and challenge facing the Prime Minister, the Minister of State and their colleagues
I have concerns about the Bill. If my right hon. Friends press the amendment to a vote, I will support them. After one or two of the appalling incidents that I faced in Northern Ireland, different options were always considered and someone always asked why I did not reintroduce internment. I rejected that suggestion because—given the background events and the manner in which internment had been introduced on that earlier occasion—I knew that many saw it as the ideal recruiting sergeant for another expansion of the IRA.
7.15 pm
I believe that circumstances might be different now and that some of the problems that previously existed have changed. There are arguments suggesting that the abolition of the measure would make more sense, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell suggested, the abolition of the measure may not contribute to the peace process. Eventually, with great courage and in the teeth of every possible problem, we may reach the position where the vast majority of people realise that, in the interests of peace and on behalf of the people, not just in the Province, although they are of overwhelming importance, but of people throughout these islands, we should reach some sort of agreement. However, I find it impossible to believe that we shall achieve a unanimous result and my great worry is that I fear—and the history of the island of Ireland shows—that there will inevitably be a risk of splinter groups and breakaway groups.
The final judgment, not just of this Government and this House, but of the Irish Government, the Dail and the overwhelming majority of people throughout the island of Ireland, may be not that internment is a threat to the peace process, but that it is the only way to save it: the only way to sustain the peace that has been so painfully secured may be to have internment. Despite its imperfections and the affront that it is to a normal system of democracy and justice, there may be some people who will not accept any outcome and will be prepared to continue to murder,
kill, terrorise and intimidate in all the ways that I know to my cost many people in Northern Ireland have had to suffer.
I was concerned about what the Government had proposed. The proposal would not actually change anything, as internment is not active at present; a residual power remains which successive Secretaries of State have, on reflection, decided not to abolish. It has been decided, in the course of a number of courageous steps that have been taken, not just by this Government, to retain that power. I slightly sensed that the Minister of State was trying to suggest that the present Government had invented the peace process; if anyone deserves the greatest credit for our current position it is my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) for the way in which he carried forward the process. He did that while keeping the power of internment, recognising that the power might be needed in future.
I say this with some sorrow, because I realise that others may seek to exploit my words, but others, including the Minister, may profit from them, because his action may be seen as a more courageous step if I stand up to oppose it; in front of a certain audience, that may help him on his way. He may not understand my point, but, in the world of Northern Ireland, if one person disapproves, another approves.
I profoundly hope that reintroducing internment will never be necessary and I would never have done it myself if I could possibly avoid it, but I would not take the power to do so away from a free democratic society and from the people who might ultimately depend on the Government's being prepared to come to their assistance and provide the necessary security. I would not have abolished the existing but latent residual power.

Mr. Robert McCartney: I can understand to some degree the feelings of the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) about the fact that there was no consultation between the Government and the Opposition on the presentation of the Bill, but surely he, more than anyone else, realises that the Anglo-Irish Agreement, in which he was heavily involved, is the prime example of the way in which people are left feeling aggrieved if they have not been consulted. With the greatest respect, I say to the right hon. Gentleman that it does not lie in his mouth to complain about the absence of consultation.

Mr. Tom King: In a way, I have made exactly the same point. My criticism of the Anglo-Irish Agreement was not based on its substance, but on the lack of consultation. There should have been more consultation and it certainly would have been preferable. Holding the views he does, the hon. and learned Gentleman must accept my remarks about the need for consultation in all things.

Mr. McCartney: That is true, up to a point, but, when the agreement was passed, I vividly recall the right hon. Gentleman telling us in the Northern Ireland assembly that, when we all got to grips with it and understood it—as if we were people of limited intelligence— we would fully appreciate how peace, stability and reconciliation would be the fruits of that great agreement. However, I have read today's edition of TheDaily Telegraph, which carries a year-by-year account of those who have been murdered by Sinn Fein-IRA, and I have to tell the

right hon. Gentleman that the passage of time from 1985 and the roll call of the dead at the hands of Sinn Fein-IRA and the equally despicable terrorists who masquerade as loyalists provides no evidence of the peace, stability and reconciliation that foolish pro-Union people fail to recognise in the interstices of the agreement created for them by others.
If my recollection is correct, when that agreement was being put through the House, the right hon. Gentleman, who was then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, told the House and the world at large that the Anglo-Irish Agreement was for the purpose of strengthening and securing the Union. Mr. Kinnock, then the Leader of the Opposition, told the House that he welcomed the Anglo-Irish Agreement because it was a step, albeit a small step, towards the fulfilment of the Labour party policy of a united Ireland by consent.

Mr. Tom King: The hon. and learned Gentleman might recall that, at the identical moment, Mr. Charles Haughey, who was then either the Taoiseach or the Leader of the Opposition in Ireland, was berating Dr. Garret Fitzgerald for saying that he had copper fastened partition.

Mr. McCartney: I take that point, but I would rather confine our debate to events in this House, because this House, then as now, is the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—a position that Mr. Haughey has never at any time occupied, although he had aspirations to do so.
We should bear in mind the fact that, from their viewpoint, the pro-Union people in Northern Ireland were receiving conflicting messages from those involved in a bipartisan policy. It has been rightly said that when Government and Opposition are in unctuous and pious agreement about the way forward, one thing is absolutely certain: someone somewhere—in this case, the pro-Union people of Northern Ireland—are being treated very badly. That was certainly the impression in 1985, and it is increasingly what the pro-Union people of Northern Ireland feel today. I am pleased that there is some disagreement today about the bipartisan policy, because it give me some hope that an objective assessment is being made in the House of the relative merits of the measure.
I shall speak briefly about internment. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) has done some violence to the historical record on internment, because internment has been an enormously effective weapon in maintaining the integrity of, and democracy in, the Republic of Ireland. On each occasion when internment has been utilised in the Republic of Ireland to put down terrorist activities in the form of private armies, it has worked admirably.
As far as Northern Ireland is concerned, I, as a common lawyer who is very conscious of the rights of the individual, have an antipathy to internment. I agree entirely with what the right hon. Member for Bridgwater said; internment should be used as the very last option, but there are clearly foreseeable circumstances in which internment may be necessary. It is informative to note that those who have been most closely involved inside the IRA, but who have forsaken it and become its most constructive and successful critics, have all said that their ultimate fear is of internment.
No one is suggesting that internment should be put into effect, but, while it is retained on the statute book, it can be introduced in certain circumstances—for example,
when it is essential to copper fasten a peace—to ensure that an agreement arrived at among democrats is held firmly in place against attack by small splinter groups. We should remember that in a complex and modern society small splinter groups need only to have the means to shut down 10 or 12 electricity sub-stations in the City of London in order to bring down every computer there. We must not underestimate how effective a small group with modern equipment can be and the threat that it can pose. In those circumstances, it may be necessary to hold the measure in reserve.
We should retain the measure, not as a result of any feeling of oppression, but because of the speed with which it may be introduced. If it ceases to be primary legislation, we can reinstate it only over a period, thereby losing the surprise and speed of execution that may be among the most effective attributes of this ultimate safeguard of democracy. We throw away surprise, and the strength of holding it in reserve—and for what purpose? To build the confidence of terrorists. Can there be any other reason for doing so?
7.30 pm
It does not serve for the Minister to say, "We said in opposition that we would introduce this measure if we were the Government." That does not make it better. It provides some consistency, but some people have been known to be consistently wrong. It behoves everyone to think very carefully about the ultimate situation that the right hon. Member for Bridgwater spoke of, and to consider whether the peace that everyone hopes for, and which everyone is striving to secure, may ultimately fail because we are incapable of removing from society the small number of people who will never, in any circumstances, come into the democratic fold.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: It is appropriate to allude briefly to the situation that pertained today, when three unreconstructed terrorists—Adams, McGuinness and Ferris—were invited into the heart of democracy by the leading politician in the United Kingdom, our Prime Minister. Whether we oppose or support the Labour party, he is our Prime Minister, and representatives of our Government are sitting on the Treasury Bench. Today, they invited those people who were specifically named in a recent "Newsnight" programme as active members of the—

Mr. Trimble: The "Spotlight" programme.

Mr. Maginnis: I thank my hon. Friend. They were named in that documentary, shown on "Newsnight", as leading members of the IRA's Army Council. They were invited into Downing street to placate the threat that they still pose, which is still recognised, from the IRA to society throughout the United Kingdom.
That approach has not worked in the past. In the early to mid 1970s, the Government decided that the one way to placate terrorists was to set up incident centres on the streets of our towns, to finance those incident centres and

to supply telex machines to people who were not terribly well-organised. Those people were carrying out acts of terrorism, but they were not organised in the sophisticated way that they are today. As an act of good will, the Government of the day taught them how they must become organised, how they must create a communication structure and how, in effect, they must become more efficient at the terrorism that they were carrying out against society.
That was done as a reaction to internment, which we all now admit was carried out with a degree of expedition that was unwise because the information was not available. However, the information is available today. We know today who are the godfathers, the people who do not prime or carry or plant a bomb, who do not actually put the gun to the back of the head of community policemen in Lurgan and pull the trigger, but who sanction every wicked act that is carried out in the name of the IRA and in the name of other illegal paramilitary organisations.
I do not want to embarrass him, but I have some regard for the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). I believe that he, like myself and others, sincerely wants peace throughout society in Northern Ireland. I do not doubt him for a moment, but when I heard him today describing things as abnormal and bizarre, I cast my mind back to the time when he engaged in amateur dramatics, and I thought that he had lost none of his talent. He communicated in very acceptable terms something that is fundamentally flawed—something wrong. He suggested that Governments did not have the right to employ emergency measures in an emergency situation.
The hon. Member knows better than that. He and other members of the Social Democratic and Labour party sat for more than a year in the Dublin Forum for Peace and Reconciliation, predominantly a nationalist forum, in which the IRA sat facing every other nationalist party in Ireland. Every other nationalist party in Ireland said to the IRA, "You are wrong to pursue a violent course. You must abandon violence. You must recognise that the consent of the people of Northern Ireland is absolutely necessary if we are to have an equitable and peaceful society and if you want to be part of it."
At the end of a year, in that cosseted environment, the IRA representatives pointed their fingers back at the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh and his colleagues and said: "No. Consent is not on our agenda." They were telling us that they still adhered to a strategy of holding an Armalite in one hand and a ballot box in the other. They are prepared to put the Armalite behind them and exploit the ballot box, and they will exploit the ballot box for a considerable time, as long as the Government are prepared to set up incident centres and supply them with telex machines, or to give them concession after concession as they are doing now.
There has been nothing quite as humiliating, in the entire 27 years of violence, as seeing the three top leaders of the IRA walk through the door of No. 10 Downing street today, entering what, together with this place, represented the heart of democracy. Then they came out and went in for some showboating. There was not a word about the consent of the people being an essential part of democracy;
not a word about dismantling the terrorist organisation; not a word about disarmament. There was, however, a suggestion that, if the leader of my party were willing, they would engage in another showboating exercise.
God knows how these showboating exercises will end. To please Gerry Adams and his cohorts, perhaps we shall all have to dance the conga along Whitehall—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend and I are good friends, because I am a Conservative and Unionist, and I support the Unionist cause in Northern Ireland. Does my hon. Friend share my view that if Mr. Adams, Mr. McGuinness and Mr. Ferris do not get their way, they will return to violence? Would he therefore agree that internment should remain part of our primary legislation?

Mr. Maginnis: The hon. Gentleman brings me succinctly back to the point I wanted to make. However we try to placate these people, their appetite is insatiable—nothing short of a united Ireland will placate them. The right hon. Member for Bridgwater said that if there were a settlement there would be splinter groups with which we should have to deal. It is much more serious than that. There is not an ounce of sincerity in Provisional Sinn Fein: the Armalite has not been put away. So when the bribes—the Danegeld—that have to be paid to keep these unreconstructed terrorists at the table of democracy run out, they will resort again immediately to violence. Then we shall have to decide how to deal with the godfathers.

Mr. Mallon: With reference to the "cosseted" situation in which I and others spent more than a year trying to persuade people that the principle of consent in relation to any change of status for the north of Ireland is the only viable democratic approach, I want to assure the hon. Gentleman that there is nothing very cosseted about doing a week's work here and then heading off to spend another two days trying to convince people of the validity of that argument. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point; I, too, know how the prodigal son's brother felt—the more so given some of these antics—but surely every opportunity should be taken to put this case and to test these people out.

Mr. Maginnis: I have some sympathy with that, but when do we stop testing? When do we decide that the product is fit for human consumption? Nothing has emanated from IRA-Sinn Fein to suggest that they can be seriously incorporated in the democratic process. Today was a humiliating today for British democracy. Surely people still remember Warrington, Enniskillen and Regent's park—the list is endless.
Some people say that Enniskillen was a mistake, and that it was never intended that civilians should be killed. The town is in the heart of my constituency, and I know better. I remind the House that on that same Sunday, about 25 miles from Enniskillen in a place called Tullyhomman, another church parade involving youth organisations and children aged between 16 and 18 was assembling ready to move off. Right in the heart of their assembly area was a huge bomb, every bit as dreadful as the one that exploded in Enniskillen. But it was discovered and subsequently forgotten, because the discovery prevented 30, 40 or 50 deaths. It would have wiped out an entire generation in the locality. That bomb, now forgotten, was approved by the IRA's hierarchy.
7.45 pm
The right hon. Member for Bridgwater says that although he approves of internment being on the statute book he never saw any justification for using it. I have seen such justification time and again in the past 27 years. Instead of bolstering Sinn Fein-IRA with incident centres and telex machines, we should have been perfecting the gathering and collating of intelligence. By 1985, when our intelligence was perfect, we should have removed the godfathers by detaining them under the internment powers. Had we done so, I do not doubt that others would have filled their shoes. They would have taken the places of the quartermasters and the brigade commanders, but if one keeps removing the finance officers, production managers and sales managers from a business, that business will soon be brought to its knees.
That is not to say that we should intern hundreds of people, but I am afraid that neither the previous Government nor this one have had the courage to face up to what terrorism really means to the people who have to endure it daily.
The Government continue to cling to the vain hope that if we give the terrorist what he wants, he will eventually become a democrat. But we democrats who sit in this Chamber do not always get what we want—yet we abide by the collective decisions made here. Certainly, we question those decisions, but we abide by them willingly because we know that that is the best way of maintaining order in society. Adams, McGuinness and Ferris, and people like them, will never acquiesce in that idea. I therefore say that the Government of the time were negligent, in that they failed to use internment when they had the chance to use it at the right time.
May I comment on the rumour that the Irish Republic will review its situation with regard to internment? Despite all the clamour that there has been for the past 20 years for this jurisdiction to remove internment, the Irish Republic has never volunteered to initiate that process, because it recognises that internment is a legitimate weapon in the hands of a responsible democratic Government, and that internment on the island of Ireland must be implemented south and north if it is to have maximum effect against the terrorism of the IRA.
The case of loyalist terrorism is slightly different; we can probably contain that within our own jurisdiction, by the use of internment there. With respect to IRA terrorism, the Republic recognised that it should keep that facility as long as we had it in our jurisdiction. Unfortunately, there has not been the courage to sustain it here, so the Republic will no doubt be obliged to follow the flawed example proposed by the Government.
The word "affront" has been used tonight. The greatest affront that we can give to the electorate throughout the United Kingdom is to bow our knee to those who would use violence in place of the ballot box. Sadly, we are on that slippery slope. On behalf of my party, I support those who have proposed that the power of internment should be retained.

Mr. Godman: I shall be brief. I want to return to some of the observations made by the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) and a comment made by the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay).
I took note of what the right hon. Member for Bridgwater said when he warned his colleagues about unnecessary criticisms being fired at Ministers when


they—Ministers—are making difficult decisions. However, the right hon. Gentleman was utterly wrong to observe that Labour Ministers claim authorship of or responsibility for the peace process. We have always acknowledged the work of the previous Tory Prime Minister in that regard. If the bipartisan approach is breaking down, it is because of the carping criticism being levelled at our Ministers from the Opposition. The Conservatives take badly to being on the Opposition Benches. One of the consequences is that they cannot support a bipartisan approach.
I support my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) on the need to ban internment from the whole island of Ireland. In response to what the Minister said about reviews, I hope that the Irish Government do not conduct too many reviews.
With reference to the rumour concerning the Irish Government's decision to review internment, may I quote from the Official Report for the Dail. Deputy John Gormley, who I think is a member of the Green party, tabled a question to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, asking the Minister
if he will take steps to initiate the repeal of the portions of the Offences Against the State Acts, 1939 to 1984, which allow for the introduction of detention without trial in this jurisdiction in view of the intention of the British Government to remove the power to detain persons without trial from the statute book in relation to Northern Ireland.
Minister O'Donoghue responded:
The Government have already welcomed the intention of the British Government to repeal section 36 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996, which will remove the provision for detention (internment) in Northern Ireland.
The Minister went on to say:
The Government are equally committed to keeping legislation covering offences against the State under constant review and to amending it in the light of changing circumstances as necessary.
He finished by saying:
Accordingly, it is my intention to bring proposals to Government shortly with a view to initiating a wide-ranging review"—
I know that the hon. Member for Bracknell has heard that before—
of legislation in the areas of offences against the State, including, in particular, the issue of internment.
I would say to Minister O'Donoghue, whom I have met, that he needs to do more than review the legislation. He needs to follow the radical lead of this Government.
I said that I would be brief. I support the decision of the Prime Minister to meet those people today. Ministers must make unpalatable decisions. They have to take risks. That is what the Prime Minister has done, and he has my support.
I detest and abhor the people whose names were put to the House a few minutes ago. They claim to have been associated with an armed struggle against the British Government. That is both obscene and absurd. One cannot conduct a military campaign in a mature parliamentary democracy.
Having offered that qualification, I believe that the Prime Minister was right to meet those people at No. 10, Downing street. They will claim that it is almost as historic an occasion as that remarkable day in 1921 when Griffith and Collins went along to No. 10, but it is nothing

of the kind. Mr. Adams is a brilliant propagandist and he will make that claim, but he knows that this is part of the peace process.
I say to our Prime Minister, "Well done. You had the guts to do it." I support him all the way.

Mr. Öpik: These are strange days: Sinn Fein at No. 10, talks between foes, hopes for a settlement from all sides, and above all, a Province in anticipation. How far we have come. The change is this: the suppression of violence is no longer the primary motive. The primary motive is now the promotion of a peaceful and lasting settlement. To that end, internment has never been effective and it never will be.
Let us remember what internment is. It is the power to have people detained, just by giving their names to the security forces. Those people have no trial and no right of appeal. The Liberal Democrats specifically called for the repeal of internment, and we welcomed the Secretary of State's announcement in September when she said that she would do that.
When the powers were used, they were almost universally acknowledged to be counter-productive. That is why they were not used in the 1980s—not in 18 years of Conservative rule. Furthermore, even the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) said:
I think that everyone, including Conservative Members, would accept that in the 1970s the introduction of this measure was clumsy—ham-fisted, even—and ineffective … It probably had the opposite effect from that which was intended."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 25 November 1997; c. 70.]
If the situation in Northern Ireland deteriorates greatly and for a long time, there will be ample time to reintroduce such powers. The argument that internment might be needed in the future is not acceptable—we do not keep conscription on the back burner, just in case there is a war. Do the official Opposition argue that we must keep legislation for everything, just in case? I could not support that.
There can be no excuse for keeping such draconian powers on the statute book. The right to a fair trial is one of the most basic rights. We need to normalise Northern Ireland, as we discussed earlier. That means a move towards more normal legislation. By no stretch of the imagination can internment be regarded as normal.
As long as the powers remain enshrined in Government legislation, we might use them on the people who would benefit from the propaganda that those powers promote. Such people could use the powers to convince their foreign funders that they needed more money for their cause. Therefore, the powers are almost as counter-productive in terms of promoting the support of terrorist organisations as they are effective in apprehending terrorists.
This is an important confidence measure not just in terms of the terrorist but in terms of the communities that have often felt oppressed by the mere presence of internment powers. The assertion that losing internment makes us more vulnerable to terrorist activity is simply not acceptable. In addition, those who claim that the Government are weak in abolishing internment ignore the fact that it is a far more laudable option to work to encourage conciliatory behaviour between the communities and to strengthen empathy regarding the basic problem.


8 pm
In conclusion, I fully recognise the contribution made by the former Government in promoting the initial steps that led to the peace process. They made many mistakes along the way, but I do not take away from them the fact that the initial talk of a settlement began with the former Government. It is only fair to acknowledge that point.
However, I think that it is inappropriate for the Conservatives to try to preserve the existence of internment. I should like to think that tonight's debate is the final echo of that discredited system and will serve to remind us how far we have come from the darkest days of the troubles in the Province when internment was introduced as a panic move by those who did not know what else to do.

Mr. Ingram: I shall deal with some of the points raised in this very serious and genuine debate. It is worth mentioning that the internment issue was considered at length on Second Reading and that nearly four hours was contributed to it in Committee. Nevertheless, it is an important issue.
I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King)—who, unfortunately, is not in his place—and to some of his speech. He brought a breadth of personal experience, as a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, to the debate. I did not agree with everything he said, and I regret that he is not in his place to hear me correct his assertion that, somehow or other, the Government are claiming credit for the peace process. That is not the case. We have always taken the view that we are placing bricks on foundations that others have laid.
I am reminded of the famous quote by Abba Eban who said that peace is not an event but a process. Many people have taken forward the Northern Ireland peace process. There have been many stumbles along the way and many steps backwards, but I hope that we are now moving towards a long-lasting peaceful settlement in Northern Ireland. I pay tribute to everyone who has contributed to that process.
Clearly, the internment issue provokes very strong views. The reality is that internment involves a decision by Government to deprive individuals of their liberty without trial and without the normal safeguards that the law provides for the protection of the accused. In Committee, these words were spoken:
Opposition Members believe that internment is undeniably an infringement of civil liberties. It would be folly to pretend otherwise. It would be equally foolish to deny that when internment was introduced in the 1970s, it was a disaster. It was entirely counterproductive, and it left the IRA stronger. The Committee should not spend much time discussing these issues. It should acknowledge that internment is an infringement of civil liberties and that it failed drastically in the past."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A,, 25 November 1997; c. 77.]
They were the words of the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), who unfortunately is no longer in his place—although he was in the Chamber earlier. Those arguments justify everything that the Labour party has said consistently, both in opposition and in government, as to why internment should be removed.
Internment does not achieve any of the objectives that some hon. Members have offered as justification for it. It does not bring stability within the communities:

historically, it has increased community tension. It causes serious damage to respect for the rule of law, strengthens terrorist organisations, creates political prisoners and, ultimately, prolongs the violence. Every major review and examination of internment has found conclusively that internment has no place in a democratic society. The 1975Gardiner report criticised both the theory and the practice of detention under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973.
In 1980, the detention provisions were allowed to lapse—although they remained on the statute book—under a Conservative Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who said that the lapsing of the powers would be an expression of confidence in the minority community's rejection of terrorism. In 1990, Lord Colville reviewed the matter again, and he considered in detail the difficulties associated with the operation of internment and its repercussions for the nationalist community. He said:
perhaps the most sinister by-product was the tendency actually to strengthen terrorist networks through increased hostility and criminal skills among those detained.
He went on to criticise trenchantly the way in which internment operated. In 1995, the matter was considered again by Mr. John Rowe QC as part of his fundamental review of the EPA. His view was also straightforward: he recommended that the provisions should not be re-enacted.
Why are we having this debate tonight? I hope that it does not signal a breakdown in the bipartisan approach. The right hon. Member for Bridgwater made some telling points on that subject. I hope that the House will not divide on the amendment—although I know that the official Opposition have organised themselves on that basis. Such an action could be read as a breakdown in the bipartisan approach.
When the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) moved the amendment on behalf of the Opposition, he did not take account of the debates in Committee when I set forth justifications for the Government's action. I have touched on those reasons only briefly this evening. The hon. Gentleman did not challenge the arguments of those experts who have conducted thoroughgoing reviews of the internment provision. if he had done that and knocked down those arguments, a Division tonight could be justified. We are moving the process forward slowly.

Mr. Maginnis: rose—

Mr. Ingram: I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman spoke for 20 minutes tonight and he set out his arguments in detail in Committee. I am trying to explain why we have taken this decision.
Not one of the arguments that I advanced in Committee and that were explored on Second Reading has been challenged by the hon. Member for Bracknell. He did not attempt to take on those issues, but he intends to divide the House tonight.

Mr. Maginnis: rose—

Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman is very persistent.

Mr. Maginnis: I am grateful to the Minister. I have one question for him. He has been part of the process that has made concession after concession to the IRA in the


past weeks, culminating in the abandonment of internment tonight. Will he tell us one advance that has been made in respect of the IRA's abandoning terrorism? If he can give us one example, we shall be impressed.

Mr. Ingram: Both a loyalist ceasefire and a ceasefire on the part of the Provisional IRA are in place. We are moving the process forward. No one believes for one moment that it will be easy. There are many difficulties ahead, but we all have a contribution to make in taking forward the process. Abraham Lincoln was mentioned earlier in the debate. He said, "I may walk slowly, but I never walk back." That is a very apposite quote in the context of Northern Ireland. If we go only forward and not back to the old positions, major progress can be made.
I shall conclude, because these points have been made in previous discussions of this aspect of the legislation. I ask the spokesman for the official Opposition to consider his position. There are no cheap political points to be made. I understand the strength of feeling, but I ask him to consider the fact that every time previous Governments tried to achieve peace in Northern Ireland, they had the full co-operation of the Labour Opposition. We are now in government. The hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to justify his position, but he did not do so in his brief opening comments, so a Division on this issue is wholly inappropriate.

Mr. MacKay: Will the Minister tell us whether he voted for all the emergency provisions Acts that we introduced? The answer is no. The Labour Opposition used to vote against them or abstain. Given that he acknowledges that we feel deeply about this issue, it is unreasonable of him to say that by voting against the Government—which we shall do—we are no longer taking a bipartisan approach. That is unreasonable and unfair, and I hope that he withdraws those remarks.

Mr. Ingram: That is helpful, but the right hon. Member for Bridgwater implied that that was a possibility, and I am responding to the points that he made. If it is not a breakdown of the bipartisan approach, that is good.
The hon. Gentleman asked me for my past voting record. He should do his own research, because it may surprise him. Labour Members tried to maintain the bipartisan approach. A great debate took place on this issue.
The Labour party opposed previous emergency provisions Acts primarily because internment remained on the statute book. We have now introduced this measure, and I ask for the amendment not to be put to a vote, so that we can conclude our consideration of the Bill.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 118, Noes 223.

Division No. 119]
[8.11 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Baldry, Tony


Amess, David
Bercow, John


Arbuthnot, James
Blunt, Crispin


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Boswell, Tim


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)





Brady, Graham
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Brazier, Julian
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Browning, Mrs Angela
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Luff, Peter


Burns, Simon
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Butterfill, John
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Cash, William
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Chapman, Sir Sydney
MacKay, Andrew


(Chipping Barnet)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Clappison, James
McLoughlin, Patrick


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Madel, Sir David


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Maginnis, Ken


Collins, Tim
Major, Rt Hon John


Colvin, Michael
Malins, Humfrey


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
May, Mrs Theresa


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Moss, Malcolm


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Ottaway, Richard


Duncan, Alan
Page, Richard


Duncan Smith, Iain
Paice, James


Evans, Nigel
Paisley, Rev Ian


Faber, David
Paterson, Owen


Fallon, Michael
Prior, David


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Fox, Dr Liam
Robathan, Andrew


Fraser, Christopher
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Gale, Roger
Ruffley, David


Garnier, Edward
St Aubyn, Nick


Gibb, Nick
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Gill, Christopher
Shepherd, Richard


Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Soames, Nicholas


Gray, James
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Green, Damian
Spicer, Sir Michael


Greenway, John
Spring, Richard


Grieve, Dominic
Swayne, Desmond


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Syms, Robert


Hammond, Philip
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Hawkins, Nick
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hayes, John
Thompson, William


Heald, Oliver
Trend, Michael


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Trimble, David


Horam, John
Viggers, Peter


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Walter, Robert


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Wardle, Charles


Hunter, Andrew
Waterson, Nigel


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Wells, Bowen


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Johnson Smith,
Whittingdale, John


Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Key, Robert
Willetts, David


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Woodward, Shaun


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Lait, Mrs Jacqui



Lansley, Andrew
Tellers for the Ayes:


Leigh, Edward
Mr. James Cran and


Letwin, Oliver
Mr. Stephen Day.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Betts, Clive


Ainger, Nick
Blears, Ms Hazel


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Blizzard, Bob


Allen, Graham
Boateng, Paul


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Atkins, Charlotte
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Austin, John
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Baker, Norman
Buck, Ms Karen


Banks, Tony
Burden, Richard


Barnes, Harry
Byers, Stephen


Bayley, Hugh
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Beard, Nigel
Canavan, Dennis


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Casale, Roger


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Caton, Martin


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Bermingham, Gerald
Chidgey, David


Best, Harold
Chisholm, Malcolm






Clapham, Michael
Hoon, Geoffrey


Clark, Dr Lynda
Hopkins, Kelvin


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Howells, Dr Kim


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hoyle, Lindsay


Clwyd, Ann
Hurst, Alan


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hutton, John


Cohen, Harry
Iddon, Dr Brian


Colman, Tony
Ingram, Adam


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Cooper, Yvette
Jamieson, David


Corbett, Robin
Jenkins, Brian


Corbyn, Jeremy
Johnson, Miss Melanie


Cranston, Ross
(Welwyn Hatfield)


Crausby, David
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Darvill, Keith
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Keeble, Ms Sally


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Dawson, Hilton
Kemp, Fraser


Denham, John
Khabra, Piara S


Dismore, Andrew
Kingham, Ms Tess


Dobbin, Jim
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Doran, Frank
Laxton, Bob


Dowd, Jim
Lepper, David


Drown, Ms Julia
Levitt, Tom


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Linton, Martin


Edwards, Huw
Livingstone, Ken


Efford, Clive
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Etherington, Bill
Lock, David


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Love, Andrew


Fisher, Mark
McAvoy, Thomas


Fitzpatrick, Jim
McCabe, Steve


Fitzsimons, Lorna
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Flynn, Paul
McDonagh, Siobhain


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
McDonnell, John


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
McIsaac, Shona


Fyfe, Maria
McNamara, Kevin


Gapes, Mike
McNulty, Tony


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
MacShane, Denis


Gerrard, Neil
McWaltter, Tony


Gibson, Dr Ian
McWilliam, John


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Mallaber, Judy


Godman, Norman A
Mallon, Seamus


Godsiff, Roger
Marek, Dr John


Grant, Bernie
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Michael, Alun


Grogan, John
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Moffatt, Laura


Hanson, David
Moran, Ms Margaret


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Hepburn, Stephen
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Heppell, John
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hesford, Stephen
Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)


Hill, Keith
Naysmith, Dr Doug





Norris, Dan
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Olner, Bill
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Öpik, Lembit
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Organ, Mrs Diana
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Palmer, Dr Nick
Stinchcombe, Paul


Pendry, Tom
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Perham, Ms Linda
Stunell, Andrew


Pickthall, Colin
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Pike, Peter L
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Plaskitt, James
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Pope, Greg
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Pound, Stephen
Timms, Stephen


Powell, Sir Raymond
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Touhig, Don


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)


Purchase, Ken
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Radice, Giles
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Rammell, Bill
Vis, Dr Rudi


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Wareing, Robert N


Rendel, David
Watts, David


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Rooker, Jeff
Wicks, Malcolm


Rowlands, Ted
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Ruddock, Ms Joan



Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Winnick, David


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Salter, Martin
Wood, Mike


Sawford, Phil
Woolas, Phil


Sedgemore, Brian
Worthington, Tony


Shaw, Jonathan
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Shipley, Ms Debra
Wyatt, Derek


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)



Skinner, Dennis
Tellers for the Noes:


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Janet Anderson and


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Jane Kennedy.

Question accordingly negatived.

Schedule 1

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendment made: No. 7, in page 4, line 26, leave out & ", 53A" & and insert & "or 53A' ".—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Schedule 2

REPEALS

Amendment made: No. 8, in page 4, line 37, at end insert—

'In section 60(5), "or 54".'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Parliamentary Broadcasting

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Mr. David Winnick: On 14 July, I raised on a point of order a matter that the press was reporting at the time. It was being said that the BBC was intending to end the Tuesday-to-Saturday item on Radio 4, "Yesterday in Parliament". On that occasion, my protest was supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Madam Speaker informed the House that she would write to the director-general of the BBC, which she did. I have seen the reply that was sent to her. I have also seen the second letter that she wrote, telling the chairman of the BBC that she was not satisfied—and that Members of Parliament were not satisfied—with the reason given for ending "Yesterday in Parliament".
I, too, took the matter up with those at the BBC, including its chairman. It is clear from the replies that I received, and from the letters sent to Madam Speaker, that a decision has nearly been reached to drop the programme, probably next April. The BBC's favourite line is that apparently some 350,000 listeners switch off when the item is due to start. That is the figure which the chairman quoted in a letter to Madam Speaker, and the BBC has used it a number of times.
It so happened that, two weeks after I raised my point of order and when the summer recess had already begun, I telephoned the BBC to try to establish the figures relating to the non-parliamentary substitute slot. The item in question is broadcast at more or less the same time as "Yesterday in Parliament"—at 8·40 or 8·45 am, ending at 9 am. Having been unable to secure that information in my telephone call, I wrote to the controller of Radio 4, and was told by Mr. Boyle that the same number of people listened to the substitute slot as listened to "Yesterday in Parliament".
It is understandable that Radio 4, and other radio stations, lose many listeners after 8·40 or 8·45 am. The BBC does not need to carry out a survey to realise that people are getting ready to leave for work at that time, or parking their cars and preparing to go into the workplace. In fact, the listening figures decline from 8 am for those reasons.
"Yesterday in Parliament" is broadcast from Tuesday onwards. The figures show that the decline in listening on Mondays—when, obviously, it is not broadcast—is the same as on the other days. In more recent times, there has been, if anything, a slight increase in the listening figures in the period after 8·30 am, including the time when "Yesterday in Parliament" is due to start.
The BBC has come up with a number of excuses to try to justify what it intends to do. The latest excuse is that listeners find "Yesterday in Parliament" too demanding at that time of the morning. When the BBC is asked why more people do not listen to the substitute programme that is broadcast when the House is not sitting—on Mondays, for instance—various facile excuses are given. One, which featured in a letter that I received from the chairman of the BBC, is that potential listeners do not switch on because they think that "Yesterday in Parliament" is being broadcast. It is very difficult to believe that, in the middle of August, people who are quite

well informed are frightened to switch on Radio 4 at around 8·45 am because there is a possibility that "Yesterday in Parliament" is being broadcast. That is a lot of nonsense, and I am sure that the chairman and director-general of the BBC know it. More than 1·2 million people listen to "Yesterday in Parliament".
The BBC agreement says that it should broadcast an account of Parliament. The appropriate clause of the agreement states:
The BBC shall broadcast an impartial account day by day of the proceedings of Parliament.
That was agreed more than 50 years ago. The BBC argues that dropping "Yesterday in Parliament" would not undermine that agreement, since "Today in Parliament"—which goes out at 11·30 pm—will continue. That is one of the most flimsy excuses that has been put forward by the BBC since I raised the point of order in July.
"Today in Parliament" now goes out only on long wave, which many listeners are unable to get. There has probably been a reduction in listeners since 1994as a result. Incidentally, on Fridays it goes out on both FM and long wave, a matter to which I shall return. "Yesterday in Parliament" has always had more listeners than its sister programme, which is perfectly understandable due to the time that "Today in Parliament" is broadcast. More people listen to the radio early in the morning. I understand that the same staff are responsible for both programmes. I am sure that it would be generally agreed that both programmes are excellent accounts of parliamentary proceedings. My wish is that they should both continue. I believe that that is the strong feeling in the House.
The BBC says that "Today in Parliament"—the evening programme—will be extended on a Friday, which of course is welcome. Instead of a 15-minute slot, the programme will be half an hour long, as it is on other evenings. Although the BBC intend to extend the programme on Fridays, it will go out only on long wave—not on both frequencies as it does now on that day. Even in that aspect, the BBC is not being honest with the House or with listeners who would like to hear what has been going on in both Houses of Parliament.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister for Arts will wish to respond to the fact that "The Week in Westminster", which has been the subject of an early-day motion, is being moved from Saturday morning to Thursday evening. That will undoubtedly mean far fewer listeners. The BBC says that to keep "The Week in Westminster" on Saturday morning is too demanding—much the same reason that it gave for dropping "Yesterday in Parliament".
Have the people who listen to "The Week in Westminster" protested about its being too demanding and said that they would like it on some other day? Have letters been sent to the chairman and director-general of the BBC saying that it is much too serious a programme for a Saturday morning? No, the BBC is showing contempt—I can put it no other way—for what goes on in the House by seeking to drop "Yesterday in Parliament" and by the way in which it is dealing with the long-established "The Week in Westminster". Those programmes are accurate, impartial and give a good indication of what goes on during the week in both Houses. There is no possible reason for the BBC to proceed as it intends to do.
As I said in my letter to the BBC, it should recognise that the liberty of all of us depends on the maintenance of parliamentary democracy. Such freedom would not last


five minutes if there were no Parliament and the free democratic institutions which arise from the very existence of the two Houses. Those in control of the BBC should certainly take that into account. It should not be the job of the most senior BBC executives to sideline and marginalise the proceedings of Parliament, and then use any excuse, however flimsy, to stop broadcasting what has occurred in the House the previous day.
We all agree that some days are more dramatic than others. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), the duty Whip, would not like a repeat of what occurred in the House yesterday—but it did occur, and should not listeners hear what has been happening? Why should they hear only a studio discussion, an interview with a Front Bencher or, as often happens, a discussion between two lots of journalists?
Before the 1970s, before there were facilities for broadcasting parliamentary proceedings, the BBC was very keen that there should be radio broadcasts, as later it was keen that the House should be televised. It was right, and the House was wrong to be reluctant to do what was necessary to ensure that radio and televisual broadcasting facilities were provided.
The BBC has always had many friends in Parliament. That was highlighted not so long ago when, in the previous Parliament, it seemed that the Foreign Office intended to cut the amount of money given to the World Service. The reaction of hon. Members on both sides of the House showed that we recognise the excellent work that the BBC does in broadcasting to people abroad. One hopes that that will continue.
There is a fear that the BBC will stop having so many friends in the House if it shows such disregard of hon. Members' wishes. The matter is not one of hon. Members' wishes or egos, and whether we appear in the programmes or not. We want a well-informed democracy. I deplore the fact, for instance, that the serious papers no longer report Parliament; the tabloids never did, of course. The broadsheets carry a sketch, but that is about all.
Once The Times decided that it would not carry a daily account of our proceedings, the other broadsheets followed suit. Obviously I do not seek to justify that, but they are commercial organisations and have no obligation to Parliament. The BBC is not a commercial organisation; it is a public service broadcasting organisation. It should recognise that it has a duty to keep people informed about what is happening in this House and in the other place. It is not simply a question of hon. Members' pride being hurt; our case is not made on that. There is a need to continue the broadcasts so that people know what is going on. If anything, coverage should be extended because a well-informed society helps democracy to survive. That is another point which those who control the BBC should not forget
I should like the chairman and director-general of the BBC to come in person to see Madam Speaker, the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House to discuss the reporting of parliamentary proceedings. So far, there has just been correspondence. It is clear from the most recent letter to the BBC chairman that Madam Speaker is not satisfied. She also makes the point that parliamentarians are not satisfied, and she is absolutely right. Let us end the correspondence. Let the chairman, the director-general and the controller of Radio 4 come

and put their case to Madam Speaker, the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House. Let the BBC try to justify what it intends to do.
Rumours are going around that as a concession some parliamentary reporting might be scheduled before 7 am for five or 10 minutes. My hon. Friend the Minister looks puzzled, and well he might, because that would not be a concession: it would show contempt. I accept that my hon. Friend has no powers in the matter, and that is right: the last thing I want is for the Government to tell the BBC what to do, except through the agreement that was drawn up 50 years ago.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will remind the BBC—as Madam Speaker, other hon. Members and I have done—that it has an obligation to report our proceedings and no justification for dropping "Yesterday in Parliament". If my hon. Friend makes those points today—they were also made on 14 July by the deputy shadow Leader of the House—I hope that the BBC will reconsider. "Yesterday in Parliament" should continue, not in some slot hidden away before 7 am but at its present time. That is what I and other hon. Members want, and we have every justification for requesting the BBC to hold to its obligation—not for ourselves, but for the public, who have a right to listen to what has been happening in both Houses of Parliament.

The Minister for Arts (Mr. Mark Fisher): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) on securing this debate. I am well aware of the considerable concern among hon. Members about the broadcast coverage of parliamentary proceedings, and I welcome this opportunity for some of those concerns to be aired.
The obligations placed on the BBC in respect of its broadcasting services are set out in its royal charter and agreement. In relation to its domestic public services, those include broad obligations about the number of television and radio services, objectives and programme content, standards and scheduling. For example, the BBC is required to provide a properly balanced service consisting of a wide range of subject matter which serves the tastes and needs of different audiences. The BBC agreement also contains one specific programming requirement introduced—as my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North said—in 1948 and reiterated in 1996, that the corporation
shall transmit an impartial account day by day, prepared by professional reporters, of the proceedings in both Houses of Parliament".
Within that framework, decisions about programme content and scheduling are wholly a matter for the corporation itself.
That position reflects the independence of the BBC in all editorial and management matters, including the content of its programmes and the times at which they are broadcast. That independence was, for the first time, enshrined in the 1996 agreement, but it is not a new concept. The need for editorial independence, from both political and commercial influences—as recognised by my hon. Friend—has been one of the fundamental principles governing the BBC since its establishment as a public corporation, and a public service broadcaster, in 1927 The Government fully support that principle.
The BBC's independence brings with it obligations, including the need as a public corporation to be—and be seen to be—accountable to licence fee payers, as viewers and listeners; to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, as the custodian of its charter and agreement; and to Parliament as the public authority for the moneys paid through the licence fee. To realise that accountability, the BBC must keep in touch with its audiences and be responsive to their concerns.
It is clear from questions raised in the House, from this Adjournment debate, from early-day motion 246 signed by hon. Members from all political parties, and from the active interest taken in the matter by Madam Speaker that Members of Parliament are extremely concerned about the proposed changes that the BBC announced on 30 July.
Those changes include the transfer of "The Week in Westminster" from Saturday morning to Thursday evening; the extension of "The Week in Westminster" and "In Committee" from their present 42 weeks and 18 weeks respectively to a full 52 weeks a year each; and the possible dropping of "Yesterday in Parliament". It is that last proposal, and the rescheduling of "The Week in Westminster", that have caused Madam Speaker most concern.
It may be of interest to the House if I quote from Madam Speaker's exchanges with the BBC chairman, Sir Christopher Bland, which illustrate the arguments well. Madam Speaker wrote to Sir Christopher on 15 July:
you will note that there is serious concern amongst Members at the report that this programme is to be discontinued. I share this concern. 'Yesterday in Parliament' performs an invaluable function in bringing Parliament closer to the people. That is a proper function for a public service broadcasting organisation to perform and I hope that you can give me an assurance to pass on to the House that `Yesterday in Parliament' will not be affected by the programme changes that I understand are under consideration.
She explained her unhappiness at the transfer of "The Week in Westminster":
This causes me very great concern. 'The Week in Westminster' is a long established programme with a fine reputation for providing both an insight into the workings of Parliament and an opportunity for backbenchers to be heard. It attracts a regular attendance of over 500,000. If it were to be relegated to Thursday evening, not only would the audience be more than halved, but the whole character of the programme would change since it could no longer provide an overview by a leading political journalist of the week's activities.
Sir Christopher's reply, on 24 July, made three points. First, he saw the BBC's plans as enhancing Radio 4's coverage of Parliament since they would give
all year round coverage of the work of MPs in 'The Week in Westminster' and 'in Committee', which are currently broadcast only when Parliament is sitting. This move is intended better to reflect the constituency work of Members as well as their duties at Westminster".
That is an interesting proposal, although hardly reflected in the two programmes' titles and not of direct relevance to the BBC's charter obligation for a day-by-day account.
Madam Speaker was unimpressed by that line. She replied:
It is difficult to see that the transfer of 'The Week in Westminster' and its replacement by 'The Food Programme' could be regarded as anything but a down-grading of Parliamentary Coverage.

Sir Christopher's second point was that
the BBC's important obligation to report Parliament comprehensively"—
had to be reconciled—
with its need to remain sympathetic to listeners needs".
He claimed that
the Radio 4 audience drops by 350,000 when 'Yesterday in Parliament' begins and there is evidence of many listeners re-tuning to other stations at this point".
Madam Speaker, in her reply of 5 November, dismissed that argument as
spurious. The drop appears to be part of a trend that for obvious reasons manifests itself during the early morning and is just as apparent when Parliament is in recess as when 'Yesterday in Parliament' is broadcast".
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North also made that point.
Sir Christopher appeared to accept Madam Speaker's dismissal of the BBC's claims of loss of audience when, in his reply of 21 November, he conceded that
all radio networks lose some of their listeners as part of a national trend between 8·30 and 9, but…Radio 4 loses its audience share faster…in the 15 minutes from 8·30–8·45 audience share falls by 1·3 per cent. and falls by a further 0·9 per cent. by 8·45–9·00.
With regard to "The Week in Westminster", Sir Christopher accepted in his letter of 21 November that the audience on Thursday evening
is likely to be significantly lower than on Saturday morning".
However, he pointed out that a new Thursday evening slot for "The Week in Westminster" would place it in an evening of strong factual programmes, including "The Moral Maze", "Analysis" and "In Business". He did not respond to Madam Speaker's observation that, in a mid-week slot,
the whole character of the programme would change"—
from being an overview of the past week's activities.
Those, especially the assessment of existing and putative audiences, are complicated matters, but as the BBC's case for change rests on them, they need to be considered in some detail. Mr. Peter Hill, a former BBC parliamentary correspondent, wrote in The House magazine on 20 October that the radio audience
rose sharply at 6 am to 8 am to a peak of around 4·3 per cent. of the UK population over 15 (around 2 million) and then drops sharply to about 1·5 per cent. (about 730,000) where it stays for most of the morning. So the audience is dropping just as sharply during the "Today" programme at 8·10 and 8·30, and the "Start The Week" type programmes at 9·05 as it is during "Yesterday in Parliament". What is more on Monday morning, when there is usually a book reading in the same slot, the decline in audience is exactly the same. So let's kill the myth that it is somehow politics that makes people turn away or retune".
The BBC's response is interesting. It accepts that the drop is, as Mr. Hill says, the same, but claims that its qualitative research shows that
the typical listener found the Parliamentary reports far too demanding at that time in the morning".
Madam Speaker's response to the BBC's explanation was that it did
little to allay my reservations about the changes you have in mind".
Sir Christopher's latest letter to Madam Speaker, dated 11 December, says that he understands her continued


reservations and believes a meeting between them would be "valuable" and
an important part of the consultative process.
In her letter of 8 December, Madam Speaker welcomes such a meeting so long as it is held before the BBC's decisions are irrevocable.
Madam Speaker is an eminently reasonable person. Why is she, like so many other Members of the House, so exercised about this matter? It is because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North explained in correspondence with Mr. James Boyle, the controller of Radio 4:
all our liberties depend on the maintenance of Parliamentary democracy",
and that can be achieved only if our debates in both Houses are available to the public on a daily basis as laid down in the BBC's charter.
In recent years, the national press has changed and diminished its coverage of Parliament, but that should not be claimed as a precedent for any downgrading of coverage by the BBC, as newspapers are commercial bodies with no public service obligations, while the BBC is our key public service broadcaster, financed with public money and operating within obligations set out in the charter.

Mr. Winnick: Is it not interesting that when the BBC says that it is observing the agreement it always cites "Today in Parliament" in justification? However

although, as I said, that programme lasts half an hour, it is broadcast only on long wave. Indeed, on Fridays, when it usually goes out on both frequencies, it is to change to long wave only. Is it not disgraceful that people who previously listened will no longer be able to do so, simply because they cannot receive long wave? Does not that demonstrate again the fact that those who control the BBC have no real wish to carry out the agreement in practice, except to the bare minimum?

Mr. Fisher: I think that implicit in Madam Speaker's remarks about the difference between "Yesterday in Parliament" and "Today in Parliament" is her interpretation of the words, "the obligation to report". A report is a retrospective activity, and "Yesterday in Parliament" fulfils that spirit of retrospective reporting in the charter.
I know that the BBC chairman and governors take their charter obligations seriously. I am confident that they are well aware that their role is to ensure that the public interest in our democracy is properly served, and that they will listen carefully to the views expressed by Parliament and by Madam Speaker, not least in the meeting that Sir Christopher has offered her.
Thanks to my hon. Friend's choice of subject for the debate, this has been an interesting and useful exchange. I have welcomed the opportunity to discuss an important matter, and I thank my hon. Friend again for his initiative in securing the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Nine o'clock.